Since I'm harping on the BCS, take a look at this ESPN tidbit about this years removal of the margin of victory factor from the computer formulas.

In 1999, Virginia Tech dominated a schedule that was weakened because regular opponents such as Miami, Syracuse and Virginia simultaneously had a "down" season. The Hokies won all their games by an average of 31 points, but still barely finished ahead of once-beaten Nebraska in the final BCS Rankings. Had seven of the eight computers not been considering margin of victory that season, there is a good chance Tech might never have gotten the opportunity to play in what turned out to be the most exciting of the BCS Championship Games to date.

That is not too comforting.

ESPN notes that three of the computers have not yet released their rankings this season, but based on what we have to work with, here is how the BCS Rankings would theoretically stand through games of Sept. 28.

1. Miami
2. Virginia Tech
3. Ohio State
4. Notre Dame
5. Georgia
6. Oklahoma
7. Florida
8. Texas
9. Florida State
10. Wisconsin

It is interesting how a one-loss school like Florida is ranked above Texas. It'd really be neat if they could figure out what this years BCS flaw and subsequent rule change are gonna be.

Kentucky coaches had several hundred dollars stolen from the locker room during their football game at Florida's The Swamp. Florida assistant athletic director Chip Howard is quoted as saying, "We'll make sure it won't happen again.''

I wonder if he said that earlier this month when it happened to University of Miami's coaches on September 7.

For those of you in Ohio, or those of you who wish to support Ohioans for Concealed Carry:

A group of Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) members and concerned citizens have joined together to form OFCC PAC, a political action committee created to support the election of candidates that desire to restore and defend the constitutional right of Ohioans to carry firearms for self-defense.

Please check out the OFCC-PAC website for further information on how you can help restore Ohioan's Constitutional right to self defense.

Following the lead of the Ames (Iowa) Police Department, banks in Springfield, MO are asking bank robbers to remove their hat and sunglasses at the door before entering the bank.

"FBI Special Agent Dave Burlew said it could make some robbers think twice and could give authorities a full view of a robber's face from security images," states the AP article. However, there is no mention of whether or not bank robbers will be asked to check their sawed-off shotguns at the door.

Staff writers at Ravenwood's Universe want to know why they don't just ask them not to rob the bank!

New Jersey Senator Bob Torricelli, the Democrat who was "severely admonished" by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting 'gifts', is so far behind in the polls that he is mulling over dropping out of the race. Torricelli had hoped that his constituents would look past the questionable gifts he received from David Chang, who incidentally is doing hard time for giving Bob those gifts. He even moved to block the release of court papers until after the election, so that the evil Republicans couldn't continue to politicize his past transgressions. Unfortunately for Bob, a poll following the release of those documents shows that he is 14 points behind his Republican challenger.

The Democrat Party may move to replace Torricelli on the November ballot, if they can get special permission from the Federal Election Commission.

British scientists, who apparently all have small feet, are trying to dispel the age old myth.

Its nice to see them spending research dollars on something worth while, and not wasting their time trying to cure cancer, or AIDS.

Because weekends don't happen often enough, I'm taking another one. I'll be in NYC Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Although I plan on taking my laptop and getting some work done on the road, I may not have much time for posts. We'll have to see.

I had been planning on ranting about this topic for quite some time. A recent post I read on another weblog made me finally take the plunge. Things have been heating up in a certain corner of the blog universe. Someone posted something. Then when they got some criticism about what they posted, they took it personally. They viewed that criticism as personal attacks. They started deleting negative comments and criticism, and even banned several readers, which is no less than censorship. Then they had the gall to whine about their First Amendment rights being violated, and people trying to suppress their freedom of speech, simply because they were criticised for what they said. THAT HITS A NERVE.

Freedom of expression means that you have the right to express yourself without fear of persecution, not fear of criticism. The notion that criticism equates with censorship is ludicrous. As a matter of fact, criticism is a celebration of their freedom of speech, not a suppression of it.

The notion that someone has the right to say what they feel without any accountability what-so-ever is a rather new phenomena that has been creeping in from the left. Those that preach 'tolerance' of others are typically the first ones to scream persecution whenever someone disagrees with what they have to say.

Lets say I take the position that the world is actually a giant disc on the backs of four huge elephants. And those four elephants are standing on a giant turtle that is swimming through space. Lets say I present this position and all sorts of evidence to support it. People would probably start saying I was a crackpot, and an idiot, or that I was living in a fantasy world. I would definitely get some criticism. That criticism however, is not a suppression of freedom.

You see, even though I have the right to speak out for what I believe in, you have the right to judge me and hold me accountable for what I say. You have the right to hate me. You have the right to refuse to hire me for a job, or vote me out of public office. You have the right to turn off my TV show, walk out of the movie I star in, or refuse to eat in my restaurant. You even have the right to complain to my employer, and tell them you won't buy their products as long as I work for them. You may support me and my right to voice my opinion, you may ignore me, or you may exercise your right to speak out against me. Regardless of your actions, my right to speak out has not been infringed. Even if your opposition causes me to lose my job, my family, my livelihood, that is the price I pay for my freedom.

Let me give you a better example. Lets say your wife comes home from the beauty salon with a new hair cut, and you think it looks horrible. Naturally, the first thing she does is ask you how she looks. What are you going to do? Are you going to exercise your freedom of expression, and tell her it looks like someone attacked her with a weed wacker? If you do, the price you pay for freely expressing your opinion may include sleeping on the couch, or going to bed without supper. Does that mean she's taking away your freedom of expression? No. It simply means that everything has a price. You can pay the price and tell her what you really think, or you can bite your tongue and live to pay the price some other day. (Like when your mother-in-law comes to visit)

According to CNN, uranium was seized in Turkey, just 155 miles from the Iraqi border. While it remains to be seen if this is weapons grade enriched uranium, it should send a clear message to the Democratic party and other peaceniks, that waiting around to deal with Iraq is not a good idea. Some experts estimate that once Iraq obtains weapons grade fissionable material, it will only take them 45 minutes to have nucular capability.

While they probably won't have an intercontinental delivery vehicle for quite some time, those SCUD missiles they have can reach into Israel and parts of Europe. Either way, waiting until after they have nucular power to do something just seems stupid. Hopefully this will send a message to the Democrats that their obstructionist and lolly-gagging behavior is not the right way to do business. The fact is that the threat is very real, and their inaction puts us all at risk.

VT improved to 5-0 (4-0 in the BCS) by beating Western Michigan 30-0 after a tough first half. The WMU defense looked quite impressive in the first half, but they just couldn't hold on for a full 60 minutes.

VT has yet to play a Big East game, which makes me quite nervous. They have to play BC on the road next Thursday (Oct 10), who went down to the Orange Bowl and had an impressive first half against Miami. Pitt comes to Blacksburg, while the Miami game in the Orange Bowl looms off in the distance. VT also has to face in-state rival Virginia, in late November, which will be their sixth non-conference opponent this year.

The Miami Hurricanes, who are off today, have some tough games coming up as well. They still have to face Florida State, Tennessee, Pittsburgh, and of course Virginia Tech.

For those of you that have been just dying to creat your own Bush speech.

Bill Clinton, speaking from Africa, expressed support for a very tough UN resolution that tells Saddam that inspections and disarmament are a requirement. Clinton adds that "if he doesn't comply," a U.N. resolution should make clear that the international community "is authorized to use force."

This is a remarkably tougher stance than the Daschle Democrats have taken, but unlike Daschle, Clinton isn't trying to protect his position as the illegitimate plurality leader.

The Washington Times has a nice article about Steve Gill and Phil Valentine. You see, Tennessee is one of only 8 states without an income tax. That has been driving legislators crazy for the past several years, many of whom are chomping at the bit to institute a state income tax. The Tenn Care system of socialized health care is extremely expensive, and combined with a sour economy, Tennessee is really hurting for money. Rather than cut some of the pork out of their budget, Legislators have been wanting to add a 'small' or 'temporary' income tax to the citizens of Tennessee. So where do Gill and Valentine play in to all of this?

Steve Gill is a morning radio talk show host in Nashville. He's described as a 'down home Rush Limbaugh'. Phil Valentine is the afternoon man. Together, Gill and Valentine organized an ad hoc 'Boston Tea Party' like tax revolt last year. It seems the State Legislature was secretly trying to push through an income tax, when "Republican state Sen. Marsha Blackburn sent a frantic e-mail to Mr. Valentine, who was on the air at the time." Legislators were preparing to vote on establishing an income tax.

Word went out on the radio, and a short time later, thousands of protesters showed up in front of the state capitol. Some protesters rushed the building, busting windows to gain entrance. They shouting down and berated legislators in the hallways. It is amazing how the threat of a good lynching will make state representatives fall into line. It was reminiscent of the good ol' days of tar and feathering the tax man. Gill and Valentine have managed to keep the tax issue alive. They frequently broadcast live from the capital steps, and sometimes supporters show up dressed in colonial garb. So far, their efforts have been working.

While Tennessee still has no state income tax, thanks to an increase this year, it has one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. The high sales tax rate is much to the chagrin of local merchants and retailers. A rift in the tax debate has formed between people and local business owners. Every year for the past four years, the legislature has tried time and time again to pass an income tax. Every year they have failed, but you have to ask, how long can Tennesseans keep up the protests? How many times can they continue to raise their sales tax to alleviate the budget burden?

What they really need is some fiscal responsibility. They need to revisit their budget, and cut the pork out of some of their failed government programs. Unless they ease up on the spending, legislators will keep trying to pass an income tax, until they succeed.

Matt Drudge has obtained a fax from Barbra Streisand to Dick 'Gebhardt', urging him and the Democratic party to slam Bush for his blood lust of 'Sadam Hussein'.

The memo, which contends that the logging and mining industry of all things will benefit greatly from an attack on Iraq, looks like it was written by a fifth grader.

While there are serious problems with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Barbra feels that we can't let this issue become a distraction from the country's domestic problems and the President inability to fully dismantle the Al Queda network. Afterall, Sadam Hussein did not bomb the World Trade Center.

Some are theorizing that Barbra is actually a Republican in disguise, trying to wreck the Democratic party. Others think it is a prime example of where the Democrats are getting their foreign policy. Either way, it makes for some really interesting reading.

If you missed the Louisville - FSU game, you missed one of the best college football games in history!

Louisville beats #4 FSU in overtime, in what will probably be the upset of the year. Rain or no rain, FSU just plain got out hustled.

I hope this isn't the beginning of an 'upset weekend'.

Gun owners are commonly criticized for an 'irrational' fear of gun registration. So, why am I against gun registration? Lets look at the two main problems with gun registration. The first reason is the way in which registration is applied, and the second has to do with the history and agenda of those who would limit our freedom.

First, something you rarely hear about, is that registration doesn't apply to convicts and criminals who illegally possess firearms. The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) ruled in Haynes v. US - 1968, that requiring a convicted felon to register a firearm that it is illegal for him to possess is a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. That means that only law abiding citizens would be required to register their firearms, and that only law abiding citizens could be prosecuted for not registering their firearms.

Since it would be impossible to prevent a normally law abiding citizen from turning to a life of crime, what would be the point. The money is better spent fighting actual crime. In addition, anyone who is going to commit a premeditated crime is not likely to obey registration laws any way.

The second reason for opposing gun registration, is that history has shown that gun registration tends to lead to confiscation. Gun owners are constantly pressured to give up some of their freedom, with no guarantee that more of their freedom won't be taken away in the future. In fact, if you listen to die hard gun control fanatics, they'll freely admit that their ultimate goal is a total gun ban. The slow erosion of gun rights is simply their modus operandi.

The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take a step at a time and go for limited access first.
--- Joyner Sims, Florida State Health Dept., Deputy Commissioner, Chicago Tribune, November 7, 1993

These fears are also supported by historical facts. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK have all used firearms registries to confiscate firearms. In the US, both New York City and the Peoples Republic of California have used firearm registration to locate and confiscate lawfully owned firearms. New York City enacted registration of long guns in 1967, and in the 1990s used the registry to confiscate semi automatic rifles and shotguns. In the late 1980s and 1990s, California revoked a 'grace period' for certain types of rifles, and then used the registry of current owners for confiscation.

The sad reality is that special interests routinely whittle away at gun rights to further their agenda. Some of them brazenly admit their goal of a total gun ban, all the while criticizing law abiding gun owners for being 'paranoid'. Perhaps now, the next time gun owners oppose yet another gun restriction, you'll understand why.
src src

Nebraska Constitution, Statement of Rights, Article I, Section 1:

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Despite the clear wording in the Nebraska Constitution, the state legislature of Nebraska forbids law abiding citizens to carry firearms for their defense.

Five people were murdered today in a Norfolk, Nebraska bank robbery. Had someone in that bank been carrying a concealed firearm, those murders might have been prevented.

In my current home state of Ohio, the courts recently struck down a statute preventing concealed carry in Ohio. Since the Ohio Constitution reads very similar to the Nebraska Constitution, I hope that they can have similar success in regaining their inalienable right to keep and bear arms for security or defense.

If you want to check the laws in your state, Packing.org is a good start.

Here is a bit of trivia from Mitch Vingle of CNNSI and the Charleston Gazette:

Virginia Tech's game at Western Michigan is being hailed as the biggest home game for any Mid-American Conference school ever. The Hokies are believed to be the highest nationally-ranked team to ever play in a MAC stadium...

Currently the Hokies are ranked #5 in both polls.

The RIAA is ramping up an ad campaign to urge users to help stamp out music downloading. Britney Spears and Stevie Wonder will be two of the prominent performers who will be speaking out against internet piracy.

Music piracy, which has already claimed the life of Kid Rock, has been widely blamed for sagging album sales. Greedy computer users have already cost the industry billions of dollars, by downloading the music for free, rather than paying $20 for a CD with only one good song.

Legislation is currently being drafted by RIAA friendly Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA), that will permit record companies to hack into private computers to see if their copyrights are being infringed. Record labels are currently afraid of a backlash of customer lawsuits, so the legislation will remove a person's right to sue them for any damage they might cause to computer systems and equipment.

However, for now their hopes are resting on people listening to Britney Spear's plea to stop stealing her music. In the TV ads, Spears asks, "Would you flip on the radio and listen to our music for free? It's the same thing, people going into the computers and logging on and stealing our music."

For more on music issues and the RIAA, check out Aimee Deep's Music Pundit. She's quite intelligent, and easy on the eyes as well.

The People's Republic of California Governor Gray Davis has signed several bills yesterday, including repealing the special immunity that shielded gun manufacturers from baseless harassing 'product liability' lawsuits. The move is pure political pandering, and it shows that Davis will do anything to get re-elected, including selling his soul to the devil.

The fact remains that there is no legal basis on which to sue gun manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their products. For a lawsuit to be successful, the plaintiff would have to establish a direct link between the gun manufacturers, and the actions of those who use the product. Suing gun manufacturers for violent crime is as absurd as suing auto manufacturers for car accidents.

The only reason these lawsuits are brought to bear is to harass gun manufacturers, and drive up their legal bills. Yesterday, Gray Davis pandered to the gun-grabbing special interests, and gave them the green light to jam the courts with frivolous baseless lawsuits for this sole purpose. Sadly, there is little the gun manufacturers can do within the state of California to stop it. Even though gun manufacturers have the right to pursue legal fees for lawsuits that are found to be without merit, their likelihood of success within the liberal California courts is pretty low. As a general rule in any state, judges, who are all former lawyers themselves, don't do much to discourage frivolous lawsuits. Meting out punishment in such a fashion is quite rare already, much more so by liberal courts like California's.

Best Harassment of an Arab in the Wake of 9/11:

It's two weeks after the World Trade Center massacre, and we're visiting our favorite pita place in the former shadows of the WTC. Maybe we're gullible enough to think that we're showing support for a local Arab-American. We ask if he's had any kind of harassment.

"There was this one woman," he explained, "who came in from The New York Times. She kept telling me that she understood if I hated America. I finally told her not to come back until she wanted to write about my business."

...from the Best of the Web today.

"I must say that I was very chagrined that the vice president would go to a congressional district yesterday and make the assertion that somebody ought to vote for this particular Republican candidate because he was a war supporter and that he was bringing more support to the president than his opponent." -- Tom Daschle, complaining about the nerve of Republican's, bringing up campaign issues right before an election.

An Elkhardt, Indiana fifth grade class is proud of the changes they've made to the 188 year old Star Spangled Banner. The intent was to make the song more understandable to children, so they grabbed a thesaurus and went to town.

"Rampart" and "parapet" were simplified to "walls." Stripes went from "broad" to "wide." "Perilous" became "dangerous" and "gallantly" became "bravely."

While I agree that using a thesaurus to comprehend the Star Spangled Banner, is educational, I disagree with presenting the updated version at their school assembly. Teaching kids that "ramparts" are like "walls" is one thing, but limiting their vocabulary is another.

My pirate name is: Calico Sam Rackham

Often indecisive, I can't even choose a favorite color. I'm apt to follow wherever the wind blows you, just like Calico Jack Rackham, my namesake. I have the good fortune of having a good name, since Rackham (pronounced RACKem, not rack-ham) is one of the coolest sounding surnames for a pirate. Arr!

(link via HokiePundit)

"Liberals are in my estimation just not bright people. They don't think deeply; they don't comprehend; they don't understand. ... They have a narrow educational base, as opposed to the hard scientists." -- House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, R-Texas.

The sad fact is that what Dick Armey said was basically true. If you look at the statistics behind it, you can prove it. However, being a politician, it probably wasn't too smart of Armey to stick his foot in his mouth like that.

It doesn't help that the people he was referring to were Jews. Even though there is potential for a cry of 'racism' and anti-semitism, a director for the Anti-Defamation league points out that anti-semitism didn't seem to factor in.

On a side note, the Fox News headline takes a rather balanced approach to reporting the Jewish connection, while CNN's headline seems a bit more inflammatory. (The 'meat' of both stories is identical, being written by the AP)

This week, Walter Williams discusses rights versus wishes. So many people are claiming rights to health care, housing, prescription drugs, and then empowering the government to go out and steal for them to apply those rights.

Compare that to your right to free speech. Your basic right of free speech doesn't cost anyone anything. Unless of course, you force others to provide you with an auditorium, microphone, and the like. When people apply their 'right' to 'free' medical care, that is exactly what they are doing.

"I want to state this clearly, President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein's survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that out objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop." -- Algore, after the Gulf War in 1991, expressing support for the cease fire with Iraq.

"Back in 1991 I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's departure from the battlefield." -- Algore, this week, expressing condemnation for the cease fire with Iraq.

Well, which is it Al? Thanks to Neal for digging up the dirt.

Would-be burglars were in for a surprise when they allegedly broke into a Dallas policeman's home. Senior Cpl. Chris Gilliam easily found and arrested one suspect, by following the trail of blood left by the sucking bullet wound in his thigh. The other suspect fled the scene and was arrested some time later.

Unfortunately, the injured suspect will probably make a complete recovery. He'll probably sue the officer and the police force.

DC Mayor Anthony Williams is asking for tax increases for Washington DC. Specifically, he is asking for a $1 per pack cigarette tax increase, and a 'temporary' income tax increase for anyone making more than $50,000 per year. The Washington Post points out that this is a different approach than both Maryland and Virginia are taking to balance their budget, where deep spending cuts are being implemented.

The staff writers here at Ravenwood's Universe note that no tax increases are ever temporary. As soon as it is time to lower the tax rate back down to the previous level, you'll hear cries from the left to "give tax cuts to those who need tax cuts," and "you rich greedy bastard."

Meanwhile, the CATO Institute points out that some state governments have managed to "outspend even Bill Clinton" in the 1990s, with state spending growing twice as fast as the federal budget in the late 1990s.

Reversing his previous position, Bloomberg and NYC have confirmed that their proposed smoking ban will be enforced in private clubs, and any place the has "employees." They insist that they have the right to control private property, and the legal behavior of individuals, in the name of helpless employees that have no choice but to be subjected to highly lethal cigarette emissions of pompous over bearing elites.

Will this ban also include private households that have "employees?" I wonder what Bloomberg is going to say to those "employees" when they are out looking for a job. The smoking ban is likely to have a significant impact on local restaurants and businesses, which will in turn mean job cuts and lower wages for those that work in that industry.

I also wonder how Bloomberg plans to fix the budget crisis, which he previously "fixed" by increasing cigarette taxes, because smokers seem to be running out of places to smoke.

Dawn Olsen, who recently claimed she was getting out of politics and would stop taking herself seriously, seems to have gone off the deep end lately. She seems to be devoting most of her weblog to her obsessive compulsive contempt of Ann Coulter, and just about anyone conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people carving out their niche in cyberspace, and using it how they see fit. Actually, I am worried more for Dawn, than anything else. Come back to reality Dawn, we love you and miss you.

I also don't have a problem with Dawn spreading her liberal views. Actually, now I understand why she hates guns so much. She seems to have trouble separating herself from a situation emotionally, and I fear if she ever actually met Ann Coulter, she'd snap and go postal. I just find the whole thing very amusing.

Dawn was originally set off on the semantics of the word Muslim. She seemed furious over Coulter's decription of some knuckleheaded people as "Muslim" rather than people "who practice the Muslim religion." Dawn seemed to take it rather personally, and immediately felt that Coulter was damning all Muslim people. Dawn went on to refer to Ms. Coulter as a racist member of the KKK, a bigot, and someone who runs over kittens.

Her rants continued for page after page, about how Coulter would want to deport all foreigners, bathe in the blood of the newborn, and kill all foreigners. Olsen went on to claim that Coulter makes "black people [her] slaves, oops I mean hired help, oops I mean slaves." I don't think that Dawn even realizing that she was insulting every hard working black person that works as hired help. She seems to imply that maids, janitors, groundskeepers, or people in similar professions are inferior.

However, one of the biggest hypocrisies that seems lost on Dawn Olsen is the hatred for people who spread hatred. In a typical pot calling the kettle black fashion, Dawn and her loyal readers complained time and time again about how Ann Coulter was such a large spreader of hatred, and responsible for all that was wrong in the world, and therefore she deserved to die.

One reader even wished she had gone down with conservative author Barbara Olsen, whose plane hit the Pentagon last September. Now I may harp on Tom Daschle every now and then, and express my displeasure with Bill Clinton or Algore, but I never wished death on anybody. All of their unbridled hatred and disdain they have bottled up inside them, only makes me feel sorry for them. It also makes me glad I own a gun, lest they lose their foothold on reality, and try to harm my conservative butt.

Apparently right after seeing the movie Airheads, Marcos Vinicius dos Santos, from Porto Alegre, Brazil, held a DJ hostage and forced him to play his music at gunpoint. After an hour, he gave himself up to police, and the DJ was unharmed.

The Media Resource Center continues to do a wonderful job of analyzing media bias. They note that a poll of Americans shows that a large plurality of American viewers feel the media is "too liberal".

While Katie Couric and Matt Lauer say it is the viewers fault that they appear biased, the MRC provides dozens of examples of Ms. Couric's bias.

Examples include such gems as:

"... do you feel used by your party?" -- To Colin Powell, in reference to only 4% of Republican's being black.
"Let's talk a little bit more about the right wing... There have been two recent incidents in the news... the dragging death of James Byrd Junior and the beating death of Matthew Shepard." -- To former Texas Governor Ann Richards.
"It sounds like a no-brainer. Seniors spend billions of dollars on prescription drugs every year, often putting them in terrible financial situations... it's important for people who are sick now and who are experiencing problems to be able to get affordable drugs, isn't it?" -- To pharmaceutical industry spokesman Alan Holmer about creating a Medicare prescription entitlement.
"With the death of JFK Jr., there is now only one survivor of Camelot. That, of course, is Caroline Kennedy... Caroline remains our only link to those golden years." -- On the "Golden Years" of Camelot.
"The Gipper was an airhead! That's one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan" -- Letting us know what she really thinks of Ronald Reagan.

Janet Reno, still upset over losing the Florida primary, vows to avenge her loss by surrounding McBride's compound with tanks and setting it ablaze.

Janet Reno-AP file photo

About two weeks ago, in the heart of my Constitutional Amendment rants, I wrote about Bad Constitutional Amendment number XVII.

The next day, John W Dean wrote about it. (But I didn't see it until today.) Dean writes about how our 20th Century tinkering with the Constitution has shifted the balance of power between the states and the federal government, and what the ramifications have been over the years.

"I believe that we ought to be focusing our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it." -- Al Gore, in a speech September 24, 2002, voicing opposition to a US attack on Iraq.

Has Algore been watching a different war? Osama is dead, or at least irrelevant, the Taliban is out of power, and we have several hundred prisoners. Is that what he calls getting away with it?

"There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbors." -- Al Gore, from the June 2000 campaign trail, voicing support for 'regime change' in Iraq. My how his tune has changed.

The question remains for the American public, is Algore just plain stupid, or is he playing politics here?

1. Should I redesign this site, or keep the dark background with the orange text?

2. Do you prefer dark background sites or light background sites?

3. How would you suggest a person like myself do such a thing? While I am dashingly handsome, clever, and highly intellegent, I lack basic design skills and generally have trouble matching socks in the morning?

(note: this article floats and will remain near the top until I deem otherwise.)

Update: Larry Simon of Amish Tech Support has completely redesigned his site, making me insanely jealous. Perhaps some professional web design is in order for the Universe.

Here are some of the strange search engine queries that have hit on my site:

nude oktoberfest photos
invest in russian porn
perscription drugs that give u a buzz
bathtub bondage video clip
prostitutes online
pics of Blacks hanging from trees
cliche kitty buddy icons
java retractable ear piece

Some are downright disturbing...

At Mount Shasta, in the People's Republic of California, hikers are now required to pack out their own excrement. Hikers are given a plastic bag and a set of instructions with a bull's eye on the back to be used for proper aiming.

The AP adds that "rangers estimate over the last four years, visitors have hauled out 10 tons of their own waste." There is no mention of how the rangers arrived at this figure.

"Maryland currently has more than 310 separate laws and regulations governing the sale, possession and use of guns. Many work well; some do not. Ineffective laws divert resources away from our common goals: reducing the number of illegal guns on the streets and lowering violent crime." -- Republican Robert L. Ehrlich Jr, candidate for Governor of Maryland.

Ehrlich was summarily branded as an "extremist" and a pawn for the NRA by his democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Vincent DeMarco, former executive director of Marylanders Against Handgun Ownersh... er, Abuse added, "That's an outrageous pro-gun position." He went on to insult an entire state by saying, "he's not running for governor of Mississippi. He's running for governor of a state that is strongly pro-gun control."

The synopsis of this Newsday article reads like something out of the Onion.

Retired teacher Maggie vanBoom was stunned to learn that her five-year legal battle against Nassau County to lower the taxes on her Hempstead Village colonial and on the homes of her neighbors had resulted in a higher tax bill.

Newsmax points out that if Jean Carnahan loses her bid for re-election, under Missouri law, the GOP replacement could be immediately sworn in. This would shift the balance of power in Congress for the lame duck session. The thought of that scenario has already rankled both sides of the aisle.

If it happens, it should provide much entertainment and blogger fodder for all of us.

The Democratic National Committee will pay $243,000 in civil fines to settle accusations that it took over $1 Million from illegal foreign contributors. Although the Federal Election Commission's general counsel found that there was reason to believe that the People's Republic of China "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law, the commission voted to "take no action at this time."

Kent Cooper, a former election commission official noted that the fines are surprisingly low, and added that they had been based on the claims that those being fined could not afford to pay more.

A similar token punishment was handed out earlier this summer to Senator Bob Torricelli, D-NJ, who was "severely admonished" by the Senate Ethics Committee for taking gifts. Meanwhile, David Chang was sentenced to hard time in prison for giving those gifts to Torricelli.

Conversely, Rep. James Traficant, D-OH, went to prison for similar offenses, but he wasn't needed to preserve the one-seat Senate majority for the illegitimate leader, Tom Daschle.

Talk about a bizarre Fiesta Bowl prediction. Gene W. at ESPN Magazine has VT and Miami picked to meet for the National Championship. That would be interesting, considering they meet December 7 for regular season play. Presumably, one of them will lose, and overcoming the late season loss would be extraordinary.

Gene must think Miami will lose in the regular season meeting with VT, and then use their Florida school "get out of Gator Bowl Free" chit to ride into the National Championship. VT never gets one of those. Hell, a few years back, we got beat out of the Fiesta Bowl simply because of geography.

Virginia Tech put on a decent showing against Texas A&M this weekend, winning 13-3. They have beaten three ranked teams in a row, and should be the only team to beat three rank teams so far this year. They were also the first non-conference opponent to win in College Station since 1988.

The game was a defensive struggle, but some miscues on A&Ms part made the difference. Bryan Randall also emerged as a decent passer, completing 10 of 11 passes. Lets hope he improves as the season wears on. While every game can be tough, VT still needs to face a respectable Pitt, UVA, and of course Miami, in the Orange Bowl.

Property rights are under assault in the November Florida election. The proposed Amendment 6 to Florida's Constitution would make it illegal to smoke in all workplaces and attached grounds, all restaurants and attached bars, and all "public places".

While I am not a smoker, nor do I live in Florida, I find the assault on property rights to be a great concern. People need to realize that places that are open to the public are NOT public property. Creating governmental nanny laws that tell business owners that they are not allowed to permit smoking on their property, or in their establishments is a violation of their property rights. If there is a demand for non smoking restaurants and bars, free market economics will drive business owners to meet that demand. Business owners should be permitted to cater to smokers or non smokers as they wish. Just like smokers and non smokers should be free to support establishments that cater to their interests and tastes.

Proponents of such legislation say that business owners won't be financially affected. However, when the Peoples Republic of California passed a similar ban, over 500 restaurants closed and business fell off 25%. Also, some restaurants have been trying to cater to both sides by investing in highly efficient ventilation systems. With Amendment 6, that investment is lost.

Proponents also point to employees who work in bars in restaurants as a reason to ban smoking. However, most people in the restaurant industry make the bulk of their money from tips. If you ask them, you'll probably find out that chasing their customers away from tables is not something they are in favor of. When people are no longer able to sit around a table and enjoy a few drinks, some smokes, or a fine cigar, those tips are going to fall off sharply.

The second hand smoking scare is pretty remarkable. It started about 7 years ago when the World Health Organization (WHO) started studying the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Long before the results of the study came back, pleasure police recognized ETS as a good way to advance their agenda. They immediately started demonizing and attacking ETS. In 1998, the WHO concluded their study, and immediately tried to bury the results. Under pressure from the British media, like the London Telegraph, the WHO finally released their findings. Although the WHO released a biased and misleading press release entitled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer," the facts were clear. When using a statistically large sample, there was no significant risk for non smokers that lived with or worked with smokers.

What it comes down to, is special interests telling you what you can and cannot do with your property, and trying to control your behavior. Even when they are sitting at home, they don't want you lighting up in that bar down the street. They twist the facts, spread false information, and mislead the public just to advance their agenda. For those of us that are non smokers, it is very easy to deny others their rights. However, it says much more about your character when you stand up in favor of protecting rights you may not necessarily have an interest in.

Remember, the pleasure police may not be attacking a particular activity that you enjoy, but they may soon be. How long before red meat is banned, or coffee. Movements are already under way to add sin taxes to coffee and soft drinks, ban 'politically incorrect' coffee, fast foods, and meat and animal by-products. If you had told people 10 years ago that a smoking ban was on the way, they would have laughed at you. What will we be saying that about 10 years from now? src src src

Through the first 11 months of the fiscal year, federal tax revenues were down 9.4% from $1.83 Trillion to $1.66 Trillion.
Through the first 11 months of the fiscal year, federal spending was up 6.9% from $1.74 Trillion to $1.86 Trillion.

Democrats point to the tax cut as the reason for declining revenues, whereas Republicans point to the recessed economy. Whichever reason you belief, the increased spending is clearly a problem as well. It should also be noted that revenue from individual incomes was down 16% from last year.

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

This and more Enviro-wacko quotes from John Hawkin's Right Wing News.

With the Dialectizer, you can speak Redneck, Jive, Cockney, Swedish Chef, Elmer Fudd, and other dialects just like the pros do.

Click here to translate my entire page into Jive

The IMDb has two stories, one right after the other that seem to be related.

Story 1 - Demi Moore, 39 and Leo DiCaprio, 27 are a romantic item.

Story 2 - DiCaprio Set for Strange Sex Role

Jenn with two 'n's sent me a lovely serenade today. How thoughtful of her.

What is really strange, is who the website is for. After checking out the link, check out the main page of the website.

Speaking of the illegitimate Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle, Accuracy in Media (AIM) did a report back in February about Tom's inability to tell the truth. While the report is dated, it is very crucial given yesterday's Daschle rant. In the middle of the page is a list that illustrates the tax and spend attitude of the South Dakota Senator. Daschle blasted Bush for the rising budget deficit, just as he did this week, while at the same time pushing through no less than 15 different spending programs.

Today, Daschle attacked Bush's record on the environment, while again failing to offer any constructive proposals. The AP even notes that Daschle's "primary goal now is retaining the Democrats' slim hold on the Senate." An illegitimate one at that.

"We're getting rid of those ad hoc disaster-payment approaches." -- Tom Daschle on May 26, explaining why the farm bill was going to cost $180 Billion.

"Suggesting that natural disaster aid come from the farm bill is like taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other. That's not disaster relief; it's a shell game." -- Tom Daschle this month, explaining why he was asking for an ad hoc $6 Billion disaster-payment approach.

The North Carolina Libertarian Party is putting out a Ladies of Liberty calendar to raise money for the Libertarian Party, and the Ladies of Liberty candidates.

This is just plain awful. I suspect no one was around, and like to believe that somebody would have done something if they were there. This woman not only beat her child, she punched her in the face several times while she was strapped in her car seat.

There is a special place in hell for people like this. (Along with those that drive slow in the fast lane.)

CNN has a video of it, but they are selling it for $40. Fox News has it for free.

CNN could have thought of more interesting ways to spin it. How about...

Arafat homeless after remodeling goes awry.

Arafat enjoys a better view of downtown Ramallah.

Skylight added to Arafat home.

Arafat complains 'Canid Camera' went too far with bulldozer prank.

Israel, 'Burnin' down the House', literally.

About two weeks ago, I ranted that we need to stop hyphenating people. Today, Daniel Hennenger of the WSJ has agreed with me.

KC, First base coach Tom Gamboa was attacked on national TV yesterday by a father and son duo. While the Chicago first baseman and referee watched in shock, the entire KC bench came to his aide, for what turned out to be a spectacular site.

As they were being placed in the patrol car, the two men threw out any legal defense they may have had by saying, "He flipped us off, he got we he deserved." Well, they will have no trouble accepting what they deserve from the Illinois penal system then.

I guess a family that melees together stays together.. [rimshot]

The illustrious Dr. Williams was busy last week debunking a Harvard study that suggests that segregation increased throughout the 90s. Yes, Harvard is referring to the 1990s. Apparently Harvard studied schools that were predominately black vs. predominately white and concluded that since more blacks went to black schools and more whites went to white schools, that segregation must be alive and well in the US of A.

Williams correctly points out that segregation has nothing to do with the heterogeneousness of a school, and everything to do with signs outside that say 'White Only' and 'Colored Allowed'. Instead of using the real definition of segregation, the Harvard 'scholars' redefine it to fit their agenda. Williams asks if they would have us swing down to Alabama and Georgia to pick up a bus loads of blacks and relocate them to predominately white South Dakota and Montana. We have to do something to get those averages up.

More so, he concludes by saying that the contention that race-mixing is a requirement for black academic excellence is down right insulting. I'm with you Doc. Tell those Ivy League pencil pushers where to stick it.

Although history has shown that appeasement doesn't work with a fanatical despot, there remains to be a sizeable movement for appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

What is appeasement, you ask? How do we know it wont work, you ask? The Godfather of modern appeasement is Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain became the British Prime Minister in 1937, and his foreign policy of pacifying Adolf Hitler and the rising German tensions became known as appeasement.

Chamberlain began to ask "Why do they hate us?" He felt that the Germans had been mistreated after the first World War, and that agreeing to the demands of Hitler and Mussolini would stave off another European war. This included the unification of Austria and Germany, a violation of the Treaty of Versailles, as well as turning over the Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, with the signing of the Munich Agreement. It should be noted that the Czechoslovakia's head of State not only didn't sign the Munich Agreement, but he wasn't even invited to the meeting.

About six months after receiving the Sudetenland, Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, breaking the Munich Agreement he had signed. Oops. I bet Chamberlain didn't think he'd do that.

Chamberlain gave up appeasement, and with the invasion of Poland, Britain finally declared war on Germany. A short time later, Chamberlain resigned.

Compare this to Saddam Hussein. Some say Iraq has been mistreated after the Gulf War. UN sanctions have wreaked havoc on the country, and appeasement might make Saddam come around. If we meet a few of his demands, like lifting UN sanctions, we may stave off another Gulf War.

Or, he may 're-unify' with Kuwait, or seize Saudi Arabia. He may build up an arsenal filled with weapons of mass destruction, while deflecting our attention with weapons inspectors and broken UN resolutions. If we wait until he 'does something', it just may be too late. src

I know that the 'campaign finance reform' act doesn't take place until after this election. However, I just want to remind you that if this were the 2004 election, we'd already be within the 60 day window prohibiting you from speaking out against candidates leading up to the election.

The great Dr. Williams expands on his article about America becoming 'sissified'. He attributes the 'sissification' to political leaders of today having a more effeminate characteristics. Basically, feminine characteristics such as nurturing, sensitivity, and submissiveness have been creeping into the political fabric, and putting our nation at risk.

Scientists have discovered a large rabbit-like bucktoothed dinosaur in northeast China. They are scouring the area looking for a giant Elmer Fudd-like predator that was believed to ruthlessly hunt the so called "wabbitasaurus".

Yet another fatty lawsuit. This time the parents of two teenagers are suing McDonalds for serving fatty food. John Banzhaf, and adviser on the case actually cites the shameful advertising to children in the form of irresistible playgrounds, happy meals with toys in them, and promotions tied to popular movies. "Children clearly are not capable of making health-related decisions," he said. "McDonald's tries to attract children and has an obligation to them."

Satiracle newspaper, The Onion, 'reported' on a similar lawsuit against 'Big Chocolate' back in August, 2000. "If you knowingly sell products that cause obesity, you will pay," cites the Onion article. Hershey's "knowingly and willfully marketing rich, fatty candy bars containing chocolate and other ingredients of negligible nutritional value." They were also found guilty of "marketing products to children, and artificially 'spiking' their products with such substances as peanuts, crisped rice, and caramel to increase consumer appeal."

What revolution are You?

I took the test, and big surprise.. I'm the American Revolution.
Leeched from Jack at TPRS, who incidentally is the October Revolution.

In a 35 minute Bush bashing speech, Daschle blasted the Bush economy. Looking for an election year issue, Daschle was careful to bash only the Bush economy, while giving Democrats and Clinton a free pass. Daschle asked that we forget about the Iraq issue for a moment and ranted that we need "help here at home on economic policy as well. We haven't seen it to date." Daschle also showed dozens of charts, that conveniently all began in January 2001. He is exactly right about needing help on the economy, but he need look no further than the mirror to see who he can blame the slow recovery on.

[Metaphor Alert] Even if Daschle is correct, and the economy was a fast moving train during the Clinton administration, and it came to a horrible wreck when Bush took office, you'd think they'd have had the forsight to see that the bridge was washed out.

Truth be told, the Senate democrats have been spending uncontrollably, while refusing to even put the budget on the agenda, even though it passed the house months ago. Defense spending bills have been put on hold while Daschle has pushed through $200 Billion in pork laden farm subsidies. An expensive prescription drug give-away bill still seems higher on his agenda than the war on terror, or the budget. Also, don't forget that it was the Daschle Senate that took 5 months, from October 2001 to March 2002, to pass the Economic Stimulus Package.

Over the last 2 years, the doors to the US treasury have been wide open to pork barrel spending. The hapless Republicans, who are trying to keep a 'new tone' in Washington, were holding the door open for them. Over the past two years, Congressional spending has mushroomed out of control, during which Republicans have been taking the heat for 'evaporating the surplus' and 'raiding social security'. Daschle whined about Bush's spending of the social security surplus, even though every administration in the past 40 years has done so. You never heard anything about a "lock box" when Clinton was in the white house.

Even today, some Democrats want to raise taxes on the American public. I cannot understand how people think this will help the economy. Over the past year, Daschle has been a master at stalling economic recovery, so that the Democrats have an election year issue. Meanwhile, Republicans have been unwilling to defend themselves. While Daschle was attacking Republican policy, Trent Lott just stood there and took it. Lets hope that the American public see's the Democrat's roadblocks for what they are, and that the Republicans will finally have the guts to stand up for themselves and try to break those roadblocks.

Christopher Reeve claims that President Bush, dressed as a Nun, pushed him off his horse, causing him to break his neck and be paralyzed.

Ok, he didn't say exactly that. What he did say was that Bush was kowtowing to the evil Catholics by blocking stem cell research. Stem cell research that was guaranteed to cure his paralysis. Ok, well not guaranteed.

Any way, Reeve feels that Bush and the Catholics are out to deny him his Constitutional right to walk again. He then goes on to offend those screwball Jehovah's Witnesses.

Bleeding heart, Ruston Eastman writes: Minimum wage doesn't come close to meeting one's living needs...

Minimum wage is $5.15/ hour. A married couple working full time would make about $21,000/year combined, which is above the poverty line. As for raising a family, you aren't supposed to raise a family on minimum wage.

Minimum wage is for people with no marketable job skills. (I haven't made minimum wage since I was 14 years old.) If you can't develop marketable job skills, you have no business bringing a child into the world. That is the worst form of child abuse.

Lazy Whiner Kid offers a good debate about my previous rant.

Is there a SINGLE bad thing in the world that liberals aren't responsible for in your book?

While liberals aren't responsible for all things bad in the world, that doesn't mean that they do any good either. All kidding aside, I used to be a die hard liberal. I grew up democrat, and my mother is a die hard liberal to this day. I don't want to delve too deep into liberals vs. conservatives, but basically, we believe in the same ideals. I want cleaner air, a social security fix, and more better edumacation. Where I differ with liberals is with the means to the end. Whereas liberals tend to think government programs and higher taxes are the answer to everything, I think just the opposite.

Socialism doesn't have enough of a carrot for people to achieve and prosper while Capitalism doesn't have enough of a stick for people who abuse the system.

You'd be surprised at how big of a stick there is for those who abuse the system. The markets correct themselves, while people who defraud others risk going to prison. Just look at what Martha Stewart is going through. I'm not saying that innocent investors don't get caught in the middle sometimes, but that is the risk you take in the stock market. Nobody was complaining when the stocks were climbing for no logical reason.

And also, by the way your theory is total bollocks... Capitalism is all about throughput (level of production and speed of production combined).

And also by the way, capitalism is about free markets. You can make a lot of stuff really fast, but if nobody wants to buy it, you will fail. The point is that you need to provide a value to people. Lets say you make a widget and sell it for $2. Joe wants to buy your widget, and gives you $2. Joe is happy because he didn't want to make the widget himself, and you are happy because you got Joe's $2. Now if Joe comes along and points a gun in your face and takes your widget without giving you $2, that is a crime, right? Why then, do people feel comfortable with empowering the government to do it for Joe? That is exactly what they do when they legislate price caps, and the like. Either that, or they go to your neighbors house and take his $2 by force, just to buy Joe the widget that he wants. (For example, 'free' prescription drugs.)

You think McDonalds is making you pour your own drink in order to keep their prices down so more people will eat there? BS They're doing it to reduce their labour costs which at the end of the day affects their bottom line.

Who is the 'their' in 'their bottom line?' Those profits must go somewhere. Corporate profit will go to either employees in the form of higher wages, customers in the form of lower prices, or shareholders in the form of shareholder equity and dividends. You can enjoy any of those by going there to dine, going there to work, or buying their stock.

To equate your having to pour your own drink with high taxes

I did? I don't remember doing that. I was trying to point out that high taxes mean people have less disposable income. Less disposable income means people spend less money and are more prone to serve themselves, rather than pay extra for the added value. With people less likely to pay for good service, good service disappears and people either choose a new profession, or lose their jobs. With people out of work or changing jobs (underemployment) you are back to less disposable income again.

It is a vicious cycle, and tax relief can help break it.

Didn't self-service gas stations in Jersey get banned after Joe Perry from Aerosmith got burned in a gas station fire and lobbied the state senate to ban them?

I don't know that much about it. I do remember my first time filling up in NJ, and the guy came running over and grabbed the pump out of my hand. I've also heard some humorous stories about people born and raised in NJ actually not knowing how to pump gas.

Here is a Martha Stewart fashion tip: If you are going to court, don't hide little baggies of crack cocaine in your braids.

A sixteen year old girl now faces felony possession charges for having 28 rocks of crack cocaine hidden in her hair. A Sheriff's deputy noticed a baggie "protruding from the back of her hair," and moved in to investigate. Police are still baffled as to why she was in the court house in the first place. Perhaps she was going where the sinners go. After all, you wont sell too much cocaine in church. Her legal defense seems to be centering around the old "I found it in the bathroom" excuse.

The janitor must have thought they were decorative soaps, and set a dish of crack rocks out for patrons to enjoy.

I am the first to admit that I am a full service man, and that I like to be pampered. With a few exceptions, I am willing to pay extra for good service. I have a laundry service. I pay to have my car washed. Back when I had a lawn, I would pay to have a kid mow it for me. I often use full service gas stations, and always try to stay in a full service hotel. I shop in full service stores, while avoiding discount places like Wal-mart. Electronics and media like DVDs and CDs are about the only things I try to find at a discount. With them, I typically use Internet channels rather than go to the store.

Call me lazy, or call me crazy, but I prefer to have good service, and I'm willing to pay a little bit extra for it. It doesn't make me snobby or arrogant. Instead, I'm actually helping the economy, and celebrating what capitalism is really all about. I don't change my oil or wash my car, not because I don't know how, but because I would rather pay someone to do it for me. They not only do a better job than I would, but the price they charge is less than what my time and effort are worth. That is really what capitalism is all about.

For example, think about the way prehistoric people used to live. A really long time ago, people produced everything they needed by themselves. If you needed food, you planted vegetables and then went hunting. You built your own house, with tools you had made yourself. It didn't take people very long to figure out that specialization and bartering were much more efficient. One person could concentrate on hunting while another concentrated on farming. They realized that by trading meat for vegetables, they could both be happy, and the overall productivity increased. That is, these two people could produce more by specializing in their roles and trading their goods, than if they each tried to farm and hunt independently. Throw in a bunch more people, and competition among the roles makes productivity rise even more. These are the basics of capitalism.

Lately, I've seen a lot of people fending for themselves. If you've visited a fast food restaurant, you've probably poured your own soft drink and cleaned your own table. Self service is creeping into other areas too. Stores now let you check and bag your own groceries, while banks rely largely on automated tellers. Warehouse stores like Sam's Club and Costco are becoming more popular.

When an economy sags, people have less money to spend. Throw in high taxes, and you really have a problem. Price competition has made margins razor thin, and many people are willing to trade service for price. As profitability declines, unemployment increases, and the situation gets worse. It is in this manner that economies, and productivity, will shrink or grow. With expanding government, and left wing attacks on capitalism, productivity shrinks even more. And here I am, a full service man stuck in a self service world.

Continuing their attack on free association, the NCWO is now pressuring employers of the members of Augusta National. Can you imagine the day when somebody goes to your employer to complain about a private organization to which you belong? Even though members of Augusta National don't charge their membership fees to their employers, the NCWO thinks this will be a good way to pressure the members into admitting women. They also think that corporations will not want the stigma of having employees that belong to exclusive clubs like this.

I wonder if it has occurred to the NCWO that this is precisely the kind of bitchy attitude and behavior that keeps women out of men's clubs. Why can't women understand that sometimes men just want to go off by themselves? Why do some women have a narcissistic need to be included in everything?

Check out these USAToday poll results:

Q: Just your best guess, why do you think President Bush is asking Congress at this time to support military action against Iraq - mainly because he believes prompt military action is necessary to protect the U.S. from terrorism or mainly because it might help the Republicans in this year's Congressional elections?
A: 68% Necessary to protect US; 26% Help the Republicans

Q: Just your best guess, why do you think some Democrats in Congress are reluctant to have a vote on military action against Iraq before the November elections - mainly because they want more evidence from the Bush administration that prompt military action is necessary or mainly because a vote before this year's Congressional election might hurt the Democrats?
A: 35% Want more evidence from the Administration; 59% Might hurt Democrats in Elections

Watch as the Democrats fall all over themselves in reaction to this poll. Daschle has already come out and said they'll vote before the election.

Sean McHugh of Allentown, PA accidentally cut off his own hand with a circular saw. He quickly placed the hand into the freezer, wrapped up his wrist, and drove himself to the hospital. He never lost consciousness, and the bleeding had stopped. Police were able to fetch the hand from his freezer for doctors, who spent over 8 hours reattaching it.

Just how he managed to sever his entire hand with a circular saw was not clear, but doctors said he should regain partial use after if it was re-attached.

Today's Best of the Web has a few good items.

Spaced Out
When someone says he's sane and everyone else is crazy, there's a good chance that it's actually the other way around. A case in point: Last October Dona Spring, a member of the Berkeley, Calif., City Council, described her town as "an island of sanity in terms of the war madness that has prevailed in this country." Now the council has passed a Spring-sponsored resolution declaring "that the space 60 kilometers [37 miles] and above the City of Berkeley is a space-based weapons free zone."

A Boy Named Jane?
It's primary day in Massachusetts, and most of the action is on the Democratic side, where four candidates are vying to run for governor against Republican Mitt Romney. In the headline of an AP dispatch on the race, CNN says that "Shannon O'Brien could become first woman governor." The third paragraph of the story reads: "The incumbent, Republican acting Gov. Jane Swift, is not running."

"He's a good man but for one three-day weekend of terror." -- Steven Feldman, lawyer for David Westerfield, who kidnapped and murdered seven-year-old Danielle van Dam.

From today's Best of the Web.

IMDb is reporting that the next James Bond film will show us a James Bond we've never seen before. Probably driven by the same people that tried to change the taste of Coca Cola in the 1980's, James bond will be "vulnerable and broken, as it were, because he's captured and tortured in the beginning of the film."

Pierce Brosnan says that "this time you see a much more desperate character in Bond. You see this renegade, a man completely out of his environment." Is this what has kept the movie series alive for 40 years? Or, is it the familiar old Bond, who always got the girl and damned the consequences?

I hope for the sake of the franchise that the PC movement hasn't turned Bond into a wussy. I can see it now, sexual harrassment suits and non-lethal weapons. They'll have Bond driving a Hyundai and remarking on how good the gas mileage is. Rather than face his enemies with guns blazing, he'll sit down with them, and try to figure out "why they hate us."

The election debacle in Florida may not be over with Reno's planned concession today. A group of Broward voters are preparing to sue the county canvassing board if the election results are certified. They have already stated that they don't want a recount, but a re-vote, no matter what the cost. Perhaps they can choose Reno or McBride when the rest of the state is choosing between McBride and Bush.

Elsewhere, Fox News is echoing Reno's saber rattling threats to sue Jeb Bush, for his failure to reform the Florida election system.

It would appear that there are conditions on re-admitting UN Inspectors to Iraq after all. The London Evening Standard is reporting that the UN Inspectors will only be allowed to 'unconditionally' inspect military bases. All civilian areas will be off limits because, according to the Arab League, it will take too long to inspect those areas. The Arab League feels that the 10 years required to inspect would be waste of UN resources, as Saddam wouldn't hide weapons of mass destruction in civilian areas. The UK has already seen this smoke screen for what it is, lets hope the UN does as well.

One last thought: Why aren't we hearing this from the US media? Did they drop the ball, or are they intentionally leaving this out?

It would seem that NY officials are upset that citizens are avoiding paying their cigarette taxes. Indian reservations and online retailers have seen a boom in cigarette sales, while retail merchants in NY have seen a 30% decline. Lawmakers are hoping to close legal loopholes with more legislation.

Lawmakers are either naive or stupid if they fail to see that legislation isn't the answer. As long as people can buy smokes that cost $140 in NYC from outside sources at a cost of $32, they are going to do it, legal or not. Passing laws against 'bootlegged' cigarettes is only going to criminalize people that would ordinarily be honest and law abiding, and will ultimately increase crime. It could also serve to alienate voters come election day.

Perhaps one day we'll see a repeat of the Boston Tea Party, with New Yorkers throwing cigarettes into the East River, rather than dead bodies and medical waste.

The Reg reports the Go Daddy will be the first domain name registry to offer anonymous registrations. That means that for a small stipend, they won't publish your name, address, and phone number in the WHOIS database.

I'm not anonymous, but my address info is still incorrect after I moved from Georgia. I gave my registrar my new info, but unless I send a notarized letter, they cannot change the whois info. Oh well.

Even though Saddam is willing to 'unconditionally' allow inspectors in, he wants to 'discuss' the arrangements. Look for these discussions to drag on for months, until after the election. Even Saddam knows that democrats are soft on dicators. If he lived in the US, the dems would even shuttle him to and from the polls so that he could vote.

It is also worthy to note that the 'Buffalo Five' were reported, by the Buffalo News, as being registered democrats and they support gun control. Big surprise? Not to me. Bad guys always support limiting the rights of law abiding citizens.

Human Events recently asked 13 Senators if they'd take a stand and pledge to vote against tax increases if they win re-election this November. When asked "Will you pledge to vote against all tax increases in your next term?" they were met with some interesting answers.

"Who are you with again?" -- Sen. Max Cleland, D-GA
"Of course not..." -- Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL
"I'm not going to raise income taxes, which are the important ones." -- Sen. John Kerry, D-MA
"I don't think so... I would freeze the Bush [tax] cut." -- Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI
"Well sometimes a tax increase is... Well, that's my answer, I guess." -- Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL
"I don't do interviews on the fly." -- Sen. Paul Welstone, D-MN

PETA has been caught red handed funding domestic terrorism, and may lose tax exempt status. I guess the Bush Doctrine doesn't come into play here.

I'd like to see their domestic assets seized, and a few high level PETA execs shipped off to Gitmo. I'm sure they'd fit right in with the al-Qaeda crowd down there.

A Karaoke bar in Bangkok is giving away free whiskey to parties of four who weigh more than 794 lbs. While this may drum up business in Thailand, you'd face bankruptcy here in the US. I knew that Thai people were generally smaller than us, but I didn't know how small. 794 lbs for 4 people is less than 200 lbs each.

In the US, you'd not only be hard pressed to find 4 guys under 800 lbs, you'd have to check everyone for rocks in their pockets. And do you really want the sort of clientele that would be attracted by free booze? Go to a Wal-Mart or Nascar race sometime and you'll find out.

Back in the 1980s, there was a nationwide scare about sexual abuse at day care centers. The hysteria led to false accusations of dozens of day care workers nation wide. Some of the trials, as dramatized in the HBO movie Indictment, alleged satanic rituals, animal sacrifices, and widespread organized devil worship. When the smoke had cleared, most defendents were found to be innocent. However, some of the innocent had been held in jail quite a long time without bond, while others had lost their homes and businesses defending the allegations.

Today, the hysteria has moved from day care centers to priests. Undoubtedly, some priests are guilty of sexual abuse, however I have to ask myself, how much of it is just smoke. I did a quick google search this morning, and found that I am not alone in my opinion.

"Even if a final count shows Janet Reno losing to Bill McBride by a single vote in the race to be the Democratic nominee for governor, Reno will concede defeat rather than pursue a legal challenge, her campaign said Sunday." -- Miami Herald.

I wonder what makes people think it's ok to cheat on their taxes? Next they'll be driving across the border to buy cheap cigarettes, or smuggling in Cuban cigars.

According to the LA Times, executive pay is a big problem. Lawmakers may even want to pass legislation 'discouraging' highly paid executives.

This is reminiscent of what Ben and Jerry's tried to do. When Ben and Jerry's was founded, they tried limiting CEO pay to 5 times the lowest paid worker. It was a noble effort, but they quickly discovered that attracting top talent for CEO was going to require changing that policy. Lawmakers may argue that regulating top pay for CEOs will affect companies equally, but in the global marketplace, this just isn't true. Instead it becomes yet another hurdle for US companies to overcome. It would be similar to MLB putting a salary cap only on US teams, while allowing non-US teams to freely compete for top talent.

It's sad that the same Congress that bitches about trade deficits continues to support anti-capitalist, anti-competitive penalties for US companies.

Neal Boortz wants to test your knowledge:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right. Immigrants moved into this country at age 65 and got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you it is the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

You've heard of Canadian bacon. David Battistuzzi offers of his version of Canadian free speech. Battistuzzi, a 24 year old former Concordia student who protested Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the Canadian University was quoted as saying, "There's no free speech for hate speech." Protester's threw chairs and smashed windows which resulted in the cancellation of Netanyahu's speech.

Oh to be in college again. I remember those days where I knew everything. Whether or not Battistuzzi likes Netanyahu is immaterial. He is dead wrong when it comes to freedom of speech. Protecting people's freedoms is very easy when you agree with what they say. However, true freedom of speech comes from allowing those you disagree with to express themselves.

Take a look at flag burning as a form of protest. While I hate flag burning (as a form of protest, not proper disposal), I don't think it should be illegal. I also don't think that people should be able to deny other's their right of peaceful assembly and expression.

However, I reserve my right to protest their protest. People still need to be held responsible for what they say. It also wouldn't break my heart if the penalty for attacking a flag burner was a $1 fine and 10 minutes in jail. Ok, I'm just kidding about that last part. Fifteen minutes in jail is more appropriate.

Algore has once again blasted the Bush administration, the tax cut, and the greedy American public for squandering the wonderful budget surplus. Pointing to a projected $5.6 Trillion (with a T) 10 year projected budget surplus, that is now projected to have vanished, Algore is quoted as saying "Surpluses are gone. They're gone. Where'd they go? One year. Boy, that was fast work."

On the other side of the coin however, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan a Bush-Clinton-Bush appointee, remarked that the economy was recovering nicely, considering the blows it has taken recently. He also said that Congress needed to keep spending in check, and that the tax cut actually helped economic recovery. Greenspan also said that Washington keeping more money than even they can spend is not good economic policy.

Now, who are we to believe? On one hand we have Algore, who thinks that Americans sending more of their money to Washington is good for the economy. On the other, we have Greenspan, who thinks that Americans keeping more of the money they earn is good for the economy.

Gore, in a fit of true communism, claimed that we should "put the emphasis on the people who actually need the attention of our government." The underlying Marxist belief is that tax cuts are actually money that is 'given' to the public. Gore feels that we should 'give' tax cuts to those that need it, even it's tax money they never paid to begin with. The sad thing is that the ignorant American public actually buys into this, partly because they are fooled by Gore's lies, and partly because they have something to gain.

The cold hard truth is that tax cuts mean people paying less money to begin with. True, if you cut every tax bracket 1%, then the people in the higher brackets are going to benefit more. But that is still true, even if you cut the lower brackets out altogether. The Bush Tax Cut lowered the bottom bracket from 15% to 10%. The 5% cut gave everyone who earned at least $6000 a year a nice $300 check. While this pales in comparison to the savings of a 1% cut in the 33% bracket, so would cutting out the 15% bracket altogether.

If you want really want to ask about what is 'fair', ask yourself why are people that make more money taxed higher rates to begin with? Ask Algore, or any other liberal democrat, and they'll immediately start talking about 'need', and people paying 'their fair share'. However, by definition a person that earns more would pay more even if the rates were constant. It works the same way a person that buys a Jaguar pays more sales tax than a person who buys a Hyundai. Since taxes are on income, and not wealth, the progressive taxation actually helps to keep poor people poor, and keep rich people rich. Democrats like Algore and Clinton have already amassed their riches. Now they want to keep you out of their club by taxing you to death and beyond.

I also wonder why democrats like Algore think that keeping more of your money in Washington is good for the economy. With the economy mostly being driven by private spending, ask yourself, do you think the government can honestly spend your money better than you can? Big Government spending increases every single year, yet it only helps keep incumbents in office. The American problem is stuck with the same old problems year after year. Yet democrats like Algore have the gall to tell hard working Americans that sending more money to Washington than even they are able to spend is a good thing.

I have added Ruston Eastman's site to my blogroll. I found myself visiting his site frequently for my daily dose of liberal wackiness. He's made some improvements to his site, including enlarging the font, and with a little help, he managed to get rid of the errant blogger tag errors.

Now if he could only do something about blaze orange background.. (I know.. its more of a burnt umber, but I didn't want to sound gay.)

Take the HCI self defense quiz to see just how prepared you are for an attacker.

I have switched from Blogger Pro to Movable Type. The template and posts have transferred very well. The site should look basically the same with only a few minute changes. Movable Type is coming out with an MT-Search feature later this month (hopefully), so look for a Search feature to be added.

The biggest drawback, is that comments were unable to be migrated, as I will no longer be using Haloscan. Also, if anyone has linked to the 'link me', you need to redo the link, because it will stop working once I remove the old pages.

I will be leaving the blogger pages up for the time being, in case people want to check up on comments or old links. I will not be updating them, and plan on removing them after a few months.

I hope this works out for the better.

Check out handguncontrolinc.org I must confess that they have some valid points.

Thanks to Kim for pointing out the link.

Twenty-one year old Jamie Lynn Sigler, best known for portraying Meadow on the Sopranos is engaged to wed her 31 year old manager and boyfriend, AJ Discala. He popped the question during a Labor Day cruise, right after she got out of the shower.

Virginia Tech handily beat Marshall last night 47 to 21 by racking up 392 rushing yards. Marshall's offense, which is largely centered around their 6' 6" Heisman hopeful QB, Leftwich, was no match for the swarming Hokie D. Even though 14 of the Thundering Herd's 21 points came toward the end of the fourth quarter, when VT had substitutions in the game, Leftwich still looked quite impressive. He composed several marches down the field, but two of them failed to score after getting into the red zone. He is accurate and strong, and a big guy to have under center. I'm sure he will at least gets an invitation to the Downtown Athletic Club.

If #9 VT has any BCS hopes this year, they need to do something about the passing game. Randall is a good mobile QB, but he has a wild arm. His decision making is improving, but several passes were overthrown, or over powered. On a two point conversion he threw a bullet into the end zone so hard it looked like it bounced 20 yards into the air, and the receiver had to duck for cover rather than go for the ball.

Regardless of their performance VT has an improved schedule. Frequently criticized for a soft non conference schedule, the Hokies are playing three top 25 teams. After warming up with ASU, the Hokies beat then #14 LSU, who won the SEC championship last year, and stunned Illinois in the Sugar Bowl. This week they beat #17 Marshall, and next week they face #21 Texas A&M. Their conference games include Pitt, who looked tough against Texas A&M, a road game to Syracuse, and a road game to #1 ranked Miami. All this is part of their 13 game season, that happens to also be the longest season they have ever played.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XXVII:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Twenty Seven is not really all that ground breaking or special, as much as it is interesting. The amendment was originally drafted in 1789, but not ratified until 1992, more than 200 years later. It was one of the first 12 Amendments to be drafted, and would have been part of the Bill of Rights, but it wasn't ratified by enough states. With no expiration date, it sat un-ratified for 80 years, when Ohio ratified it to protest a Congressional pay hike. It then languished for more than 100 years, until Wyoming ratified it in 1978. From 1983 to 1992, it steadily gained enough states to become law, largely due to the championing of Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator.

In a time when Congressional pay raises are automatic, unless Congress votes to stop it, it is nice to note that our founding fathers had the foresight to propose this Amendment.
src

Look for Janet Reno to ask for a recount in the Florida Gubernatorial Democratic Primary. Fox News reports that election officials just don't understand how they could have had so many problems, given the recent investment in new polling equipment.

If the voting equipment has changed, and the candidates have changed, what is left? While some democrats resurrect the 'vast right wing conspiracy' theory, it is painfully obvious to most of us that some people in Florida just cannot seem to figure out how to vote. Combine voter stupidity with poll workers who are unable to operate the new voting machines, and what do you have? Recounts, lawsuits, calls for a re-vote. It's deja vu all over again.

Update: The final vote tally has Reno losing by 0.6%, which is not close enough to trigger an automatic recount. Reno is still considering her options, which may include a legal challenge, or surrounding McBride's campaign headquarters with tanks and firebombing it.

A conspiracy nut claims that Aldrin's moon walk was faked, despite video evidence of the event. Seventy-two year old Buzz allegedly decked the guy after being ambushed outside his hotel, which is captured on video and aired on the national news. Buzz is claiming self defense, as the large young man was preventing him from escaping.

Am I the only one that sees the irony here? While this punk, who really ought to find a real job, deserved to be decked, can he really prove that Buzz hit him? The footage I saw on the news last night looked like it was faked on a Hollywood sound stage.

"Levi Strauss is to introduce a new range of slacks with mobile phone anti-radiation pockets," reports the Register. The Reg also notes that while there is no proof that radiation and EMF from mobile phones is dangerous, Levi's is quick to offer customers a way to take precautions, and have peace of mind.

Regardless, it should make for a unique ad campaign.

Today's Bad Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XVII, which requires that Senators be elected by popular vote. There currently isn't much debate over Seventeen, and most people couldn't even tell you what it changed. Seventeen was passed in 1912 and ratified in 1913. It was passed to try to bring the government closer to the people, and the people closer to a true democracy. Previously, Senators were appointed by state legislatures, and there were procedural problems with deadlocked legislatures, unable to agree on a Senator. There were also allegations that legislatures could be easily corrupted. While Seventeen cleared away these problems, it created many more.

First, the popular election of Senators created all sorts of campain finance problems. With the passing of Seventeen, senators were immediately beholden to special interests, and large campaign contributors. While this influence was recently addressed with the McCain-Feingold law, both Senators and special interests have been busy finding ways around it.

Seventeen also dealt a serious blow to state's rights. With states removed from the federal process, the checks and balances the states had over the federal government was limited. The federal government not only began to expand uncontrollably, but it was empowered to impose its will over the individual states. Over time, mandates were imposed on the states, and the fed took control over some state institutions.

With the removal of checks and balances over the legislative branch, states were also removed from the federal judicial process. With states no longer having an influence on the selection of federal judges, Seventeen also destroyed the checks and balances over the judicial branch.

With the Florida election problems of 2000, and now 2002, there is a movement to disband the electoral college, and the checks and balances states currently have over the executive branch. This will remove the final check and balance states have over the federal government, and bring America closer to true democracy. While many people don't understand the difference between a democratic republic, and a true democracy, our founders understood the dangers of a true democracy and purposely established a representative government.

Democracy is a dangerous form of mob rule, where the will of the majority outweighs the rights of the individual. To borrow an example from the great Dr. Williams, how would you like it if democracy decided whom you were to marry, or where you were going to work. You'd probably object, wanting to make those decisions for yourself. Democracy is also dangerous in that it lends credibility to immoral acts. You need only look as far as Zimbabwe to see that a majority of the people should not be allowed to impose will over the minority, just because they voted on it first.
src src src

A father of two in the UK faces a jail sentence, following the stabbing death of a career criminal who had broken into his home. The intruder, who had a history of burglaries and violence, was stabbed to death after threatening Barry-Lee Hastings and his family with a crowbar. Hastings, who was cleared of murder, was found guilty of manslaughter by a 10-2 jury vote.

The UK, where apparently a unanimous decision isn't required for conviction, routinely prosecutes home owners for defending themselves from attack. In 1994, an English homeowner used a toy gun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home. The police arrested him for using an imitation gun to threaten and intimidate.

CNN Poll: Should September 11 be made a national holiday? As of right now, 45% of the voters think so.

September 11 should NOT be a national holiday, just as Washington, Lincoln, and Dr. King, are all celebrated on their BIRTHDAY, and not the day they died. We should never celebrate dark days in history as holidays. Memorial Day and Veteran's Day are set aside to remember those that have given their life for our country. Thanksgiving celebrates what we should be thankful for. Labor Day celebrates hard working Americans contributions to our country.

The last thing we need is people taking another day off work to stay home and think about all the people that died on 9/11.

I was going to watch the 9/11 ceremonies live on the internet, but as soon as I click the CNN [live coverage] button, I get a window that pops up asking for $40.

Now I'm not against media companies charging for content, per se. I just really love free stuff. Years ago, just about everything on the internet was free, largely paid for by advertising revenue. Now it seems we still have to put up with banner ads, pop-up ads, pop-under ads, and the really annoying ads that dance around your screen, AND media companies like TWAOL want us to pay for them for it. Also, $40 seems kind of steep for content I can watch for free on TV.

Check out Kim's Gratuitous Gun Pics (bottom of page) today. I must say that he has a nice taste in firearms.

In a step forward toward repealing the legislation, a Greek court has ruled that legislation banning all computer games in Greece is a violation of the country's Constitution.

GA State Rep. Billy McKinney has lost the Democratic nomination for re-election in a runoff election. Rather than blame the J-E-W-S like he did for his daughter Cynthia's political demise, he blames the 'K-L-A-N'. Specifically, he blames black people in his own district for supporting the Klan by voting for his white opponent. It is quite sad that McKinney equates his opponent's membership in the Sons of the Confederacy to racist fucks, who are best known for hanging black men from trees.

Despite McKinney's divisiveness and bigotry, the AJC lists him as a 'civil rights activist'.

Today's Bad Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XVIII: Prohibition of Alcohol.

Believe it or not, there are some Bad Constitutional Amendments. Amendment Eighteen was passed largely due to special interest movements that started in the mid to late 19th Century. More than a dozen states had prohibition laws before the start of the Civil War, hoping to curtail public drunkenness, gambling, and prostitution. After the war, the movement, largely waged by women's groups, organized into the "Anti-Saloon League". The ASL, whose goal was national prohibition, polled politicians on their views, and was able to sweep the election of 1915. A few years later, Prohibition was quickly passed and ratified.

Eighteen is good proof that bans by the 'pleasure police' simply do not work. Whether or not you are banning alcohol, guns, drugs, or gambling, people are going to find a way around it. In the Roaring Twenties, organized crime profited heavily from prohibition. Bathtub gin and bootlegging were big money makers, while speakeasy saloons popped up all over the place. Countless people died, both from the lawless methods of production and distribution, and from the lack of liquor production standards. (Moonshine, if not manufactured properly can cause blindness or death.) Enforcement of the liquor ban was both expensive and ineffective, and it didn't help that the government could no longer collect tax revenue on the illegal products.

Lessons learned from prohibition are lost on today's special interest groups, who still hope to control your behavior. Movements are currently underway to ban or limit your access to cigarettes, guns, gambling, SUVs, and even fast food. Gun grabbers think that a gun ban will stop violent crime, while anti-smokers think that prohibitive sin taxes will stop smoking. In the 00's, numerous localities have attacked personal behavior from smoking to drinking gourmet coffee*. Eighteen should stand as a stern reminder of what can happen when special interest groups and pleasure police conspire to take away your rights, and control your behavior.

*Please note that while I am neither a smoker, nor a coffee drinker, I stand up for an individual's right to kick back and enjoy the pleasures of life as a personal reward for a hard day's work.

Sigh, I think that sometimes liberals argue just to hear themselves talk.

I wanna own a nuclear weapon. It's an arm. I have the right to bear it. Question: Why can't I? -- Paul

Very simply, you are confusing ordnance with arms. Nuclear devices, tanks, rockets, and bombs are ordnance that cannot be deployed by hand. An arm is a weapon that can be carried for defense. During the colonial period that meant rifles, pistols, swords, and knives. If you want more evidence on what is meant by 'arms', and some case law behind the subject, click here.

Why do you continue to claim "if the founding fathers said something, it's was true then and it is true today. -- Paul

As discussed in the above link, there are three schools of thought on this subject. The "living document" school that think the constitution should interpreted based on the current social beliefs, the "framer's intent" school that hopes to decipher what the framers were trying to accomplish, and the "textualism" school that reads the literal text of the document. I subscribe the the "textualism" school because of its objectivity. It reads the law for what it actually says, and doesn't try to decipher what the intention is, or what the "meaning of the moment" is.

...If you take away guns, less people are gonna get killed. That's a pretty ballsy statement, but I stand by it. Question: ...Do you hate people? Do you just wanna see more people get killed? -- Paul
...You fail to point out that if everyone can carry a concealed weapon, the attackers will have them as well. -- Ruston

First, I hate to sound cliche, but if you criminalize guns, than only criminals will own guns. Lets look at the different scenarios: Only the government has guns; only the government and criminals have guns; everybody has guns. Now, the only two realistic scenarios are only the government and criminals have guns, and everybody has guns. If you outlaw guns, criminals are NOT going to line up and turn in their guns. In fact, gun registration doesn't even apply to criminals, since the Supreme Court has ruled that forcing convicts, who aren't allowed to own guns anyway, to register was a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Ruston, I hope you don't honestly believe that banning guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals? If someone is going out to attack and rape a woman, do you honestly think he's going to leave his gun at home because it's illegal to carry it? Compare a gun ban to the ban on drugs. No amount of enforcement has been able to keep drugs off our streets. You can find illegal drugs in any sizable city in the US, even though they have been banned for decades. Banning guns only affects those that obey the law, and they aren't a threat any way.

Second, I don't hate people. I hate criminals. If you've ever had a gun stuck in your face or had somebody take something from you by force, you should know what I mean. Statistics show that concealed carry is a proper deterrent against crime, and that simply brandishing a firearm is typically enough to thwart an attack. Firearms are used defensively over 2 million times per year.

Oh, and your point about SUVs and Big Macs is a non-sequitur as well, big boy. -- Paul

Actually, it isn't. When Ruston said that the internet never killed anyone, he implied that guns have. Personifying an inanimate object like a gun is quite comparable to blaming SUVs for car accidents, and blaming Big Mac's for obesity. Voluntary human actions are required to fire a gun, drive a car, and consume a Big Mac, thus the references have a relationship.

So our homicide rate is almost 4 times higher than the EU rate. Why? I'll definitely concede that there are many theories. Mine? Availability of handguns in the States. ....My chances of being killed by a handgun are far less here than in the States and that helps me sleep at night. -- Paul

You should have said there are many 'factors', not 'theories'. Also, you cannot look at raw statistics to determine your chances of being murdered. That implies that murder is random, and has no other dependencies. For instance, if you walk through West Philly with 20's hanging out of your pocket, you are much more likely to be murdered than if you don't. Also, factors like poverty, and strict drug laws and enforcement weigh in. These factors yield a higher rate of gang violence and inner city murder. For the sake of the argument lets say that there are also 4 times as many gang members or illegal drug users in the US. Would that mean that you are 4 times more likely to join a street gang, or use illegal drugs? I doubt it.

I am opposed to Steve's view that anyone and everyone should be able to carry concealed weapons, no matter how deadly. -- Ruston

Ruston, I never said that, nor did I mean to imply it. Please don't put words into my mouth. By the way, Vermont is the only state in the 50 that allows private citizens (who haven't lost the right through conviction or mental illness) to carry concealed firearms without a background check and/or training.

Say an attacker mugs a woman to steal her purse. If she is allowed to carry a gun, she will pull it out on the attacker. The attacker, in turn, will pull out his... I'm sorry, but I'd rather see a mugging take place than see a murder. -- Ruston

Try telling that to someone who's been raped. Try telling your wife, sister, or mother that you'd rather see them raped, violated, or killed than use a firearm to defend themselves. The simple fact is that if someone attacks you, you don't know what their intentions are. Predators are evil people who prey on the weak and innocent. I have no problem with a victim pulling out a gun and striking him DRT. (dead right there)

Also, if somebody attacks me, and I pull out my gun, I'm damn well going to use it. They'd better already have their gun out, because there will be no "and then they pull theirs." There is only me pulling mine, and them hitting the ground.

... you fail to see that others will use the gun for improper means. That would take away MY right to live, and I don't want that. -- Ruston

You speak as though guns have a mystical power to corrupt people. I've got news for you, others already use guns for improper means. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of criminals have already lost their right bear arms, which invalidates your whole premise. Letting honest people carry firearms doesn't violate your right to live. I have been a gun owner for more than a decade, and had a carry permit in Georgia. By your thinking, it is amazing that I've never deprived anyone of their right to live. As an honest gun owner, I only pose a threat to criminals, and those who would try to deprive me of my right to life, liberty and property. You only need to be worried if you are thinking about breaking into my home or attacking me.

Ruston Easton continues his assault on the Second Amendment:

What I said was the INTENTION of the law was written for militias before there was any real "law enforcement agencies." And, yes, it does matter that no handguns or semi-automatic weapons existed at the time. And no, you can't apply the "there was no internet either, so they would have changed the 1st amendment if they knew about it," either. The internet doesn't kill people.

First, Ruston tries to twist the intention of the Founding Fathers to fit his argument. Lets look at the Bill of Rights. The first eight Amendments secure individual freedoms and liberties. Amendments 1 through 8 refer to an individual's right to expression and religion, right to bear arms, protection from quartering soldiers, protection against government searches and seizures, right to due process and compensation for takings, right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses, right to trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Amendment 9 even adds that these individual rights are not the only rights an individual has. However, Ruston would have you believe that even though all these other rights are specifically listed as individual rights, and even though the Second Amendment specifically states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the Framers of the United States Constitution were actually referring to the 'state', AND, they were so careless, that they said 'people', when they actually meant to say 'state'.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789. src

Second, Ruston tries to say that advancements in firearms makes a difference. Not so. Your right to bear arms is an unalienable right of self protection and preservation. It is NOT a right to bear a vintage model long-bore mussel loading musket manufactured in 1798 . Just as criminals are carrying advanced firearms, so should you, to defend yourself and keep them in check.

Third, Ruston tries to demonize and personify guns as being a 'cause' of crime by saying the "internet doesn't kill people." Well, Ruston, firearms, SUVs, and fatty foods don't kill people. It is what PEOPLE DO with those inanimate objects that kills people.

Fourth, as for the internet killing people, you might as well say newspapers never killed anyone either. While you can argue back and forth the indirect involvement of media and communication in wars and crime, the point you made is a non sequitur. Don't bother grabbing your dictionary, that simply means that one point has nothing to do with the other. While comparing the advancements in media to the advancements in firearms IS logical when discussing the First vs. Second Amendments standing the test of time, it is quite ILLOGICAL (and incorrect), to say that an implement of freedom of speech never killed anyone, because that is not what we were discussing. It would be like me saying you can't use a typewriter to hunt a turkey.

Ruston, you like most liberals, speak from abject fear and emotion. I don't know whether or not you have ever handled a firearm, much less used one. I do know that liberals are very quick to try to take away or limit the very freedoms that I enjoy. While they may have the noblest of intentions, the proof is in the pudding. Crime is not caused by guns. We've had crime since the beginning of time, and will continue to have it with or without the availability of firearms.

I do know one thing for sure, guns are a great equalizer and deterrent. Unarmed, a 5' 100 lb woman doesn't stand much of a chance against a 6' 5" 300 lb man. Let her buy a snub nose .38 and learn how to defend herself with it, and you'd be surprised at how fast that man runs away. Sprinkle a few of those well armed and capable women around the city, and you'll be surprised at how many attackers think twice before trying to make one of them their victim. In fact, they'll probably leave that city, in search of easier prey. They may even turn up in your neighborhood, where liberals have been so kind as to disarm their victims for them.

A British woman, Jean Curtis, is filing for divorce after she caught her husband, wearing a silk blouse and stockings, and fraternizing with their Sunday lunch.

"It's all right - we can still eat it." claimed her husband, Ian Curtis, who was subsequently ejected from their home.

Thanks to Serge for the link.

Ruston Easton of Conservatives... would love to take away your right to own firearms. It looks like I'm not the only one that he has struck a chord with.

"It is the use of force. It is a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary."
-- Tom Daschle, voicing support for attacking Iraq in 1998.

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us."
-- Bill Clinton, voicing support for attacking Iraq in 1998.

So Democrats whine, bitch, and moan about not being consulted. Now that the President has agreed to take the issue to Congress they act surprised. Daschle, who supported attacking Iraq just 4 years ago under Clinton, is wavering now. It is going to be interesting to see just how Daschle and the democrats pull off delaying the vote until after the November election. Look for them to keep requesting more information, so that they can analyze everything.

Hopefully, the American public will see the Daschle delaying tactics for what they are. This is the man who has refused to bring issues to a vote, simply because he doesn't like them. Our courts are understaffed, our military is under funded, and numerous bills languish in purgatory because Daschle 'doesn't think the votes are there.' If the votes aren't there to pass some of this legislation, why doesn't he put it up for a vote? Because the votes are there.

Daschle has a simple policy. Since he sets the agenda, bills he wants to pass get a vote. If they don't pass, they get another vote. If they don't pass again, they are reworked and get yet another vote. Bills that Daschle doesn't support never even get to the floor. When Daschle is called on it in the media, he says 'the votes aren't there'. When conservative democrats like Zell Miller step forward and voice support for the bill, Daschle claims that there is not a 60 vote majority, so it is not worth voting on. If Iraq is going to attack somebody, I hope they don't do it before the election. Because Daschle is not going to let the US get involved until after November.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XIV; specifically the equal protection and due process clauses:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment is long and verbose, but has some very important aspects to it. It was a direct product of the Civil War, and basically gave citizenship rights to any born or naturalized person in the US over 21 years of age.

The equal protection and due process clause, however, is highly important and the most used clause in Amendment 14. Most importantly, it forced individual states to abide by the Bill of Rights, which they were previously free to ignore. While the clause resulted in such good legislation as the Voting Rights Act, it was however, a direct blow to states' rights which were quickly eroding following the war.

Dr. Walter Williams points out that Fourteen has also protected citizens rights to free association. In 1958, two Virginia residents were convicted of miscegenation, for marrying interracially. Their case was heard by the US Supreme Court, which held that such laws were a violation of Fourteen. While today, most would agree that states should not be able to bar interracial marriage, what if they demanded it? What if you were forced to pick your wife based solely on her qualifications for the job, regardless of whether she was fat or thin, ugly or pretty, or black or white? Surely, that too would be a violation of Fourteen. Why then, do feminists insist on trying to break up private, all male golfing clubs such as Augusta National? Just as you should not be barred from allowing women or blacks into your private club, you shouldn't be mandated to do so either. Forced membership also violates Fourteen.

As Dr. Williams so eloquently puts it, the "true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable."

Here is something interesting. If Philly loses to the Mets tonight, the Braves will clinch their division by not even playing. The only two teams to have ever clinched earlier to tonight are the 1995 Indians and the 1975 Reds.

There will undoubtedly be an overwhelming amount of coverage, and 9/11 memorials that will be taking place this week. Don't look for me to jump on the bandwagon and start throwing up a bunch of coverage. It will be normal operating procedures here at Ravenwood's Universe. If there is a noteable news event, I may comment on it.

"'Why don't English players win Wimbledon? They ought to be more like Americans and play to win.' To my mind, it's time Americans started being more like the English--or at least learnt to lose with grace." -- Former tennis great, John McEnroe, in the London Telegraph.

The Wall Street Journal points out that McEnroe preaching losing with grace is like OJ speaking out against spousal abuse.

In Augusta, GA, a man armed with a pellet gun and a foam cooler tried to rob a convenience store. The robber punched eye holes in the foam cooler and stuck it on his head to complete his 'disguise'. The clerk foiled the robbery by grabbing the pellet gun away from the crook, and pushing him out the door. The suspect fled but was later apprehended and charged.

Speaking of music, I want to salute the late Cab Calloway. Cab Calloway epitomized the Swing era, and his memory lives on with the Cab Calloway Orchestra. He lived during an era when a 'hummer' was somebody that was exceptionally good at something, and 'trickeration' meant you were struttin' your stuff.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IV protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Hopefully Congress will remember this Amendment when they are drafting RIAA butt-schmoozing legislation that permits them to hack into your computer looking for pirated music. Even Jack Valenti, President and CEO of the Motion Picture Ass. of America, started to step back from legislation that would not only try to repeal Amendment IV, but would limit a citizens right to file suit against firms for such invasions.

Most attacks against the Fourth Amendment have focused on deciphering just what constitutes 'unreasonable' searches and seizures, and how much 'probable cause' is needed. As the debate moves into cyberspace, look for private organizations like the RIAA and MPAA to resort to entrapment to get the 'probable cause' they need.

The Guardian points out that Iraq only needs to obtain fissile materials to be able to wage nuclear war. Still, liberal appeasers want to wait until Saddam has nuclear power, or worse uses it, before we step in and stop his weapons development.

I've said before that liberals should be willing to at least set a number of how many people have to be killed before the US is 'justified' in enforcing UN regulations that Saddam himself has signed. After all, a man that won 99% of the vote in the last election can't be all that bad.

It looks like the folks at Haloscan are messing with their commenting scripts. It looks like commenting is working, but I have noticed that some of the comments have disappeared. I don't know if they will return. Feel free to email me or leave me feedback in addition to commenting.

I dedicate this to my cousin's wife who criticized me for describing somebody's physical appearance as black, instead of African-American. I have been a staunch disbeliever in the process of hyphenating Americans. I believe that we are all Americans, and hyphenation only creates confusion and superfluousness under the guise of sensitivity. Hyphenation is best deserved to describe people that are actual immigrants to this country, and not people that are born here. Even then, it should be used to describe where they come from, not the color of their skin. Forty years ago, an Irish-American was somebody who had come over from Ireland. If you wanted to know what color they were, you had to look at them.

Here is a pretty good example of why people shouldn't be hyphenated. Denys Blell claims he has been discriminated against because he is not "black enough" as an 'African-American' to please the staff at Loyola College in Maryland. While Blell, of Afro-Lebanese origin is undoubtedly African American, I found it curious that most of the criticism centers around Loyola's alleged claim that Blell is not "black enough" for the job, rather than Loyola's blatantly bigoted hiring policy. Rather than attack the policy itself, the lawsuit seems to want to create a color chart to define where white ends and black begins. It seems as though Blell is saying "I am so black enough, and I do come from Africa."

Another good example is Kim du Toit. I added Kim to my blogroll because we seem to share the same views on firearms. He has good technical knowledge of the subject, and he provided me with a good excuse for stockpiling ammunition. (People used to look at me funny when they found out I had thousands of rounds of ammo on hand.) Kim describes himself as "a white African-American with a girl's first name and a French last name." Born and raised in South Africa, Kim lived in Chicago for a while. I can imagine his surprise when Chicago liberals told him he was not African-American.

My refusal to label people as African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native American-Americans, or whatever does not make me a bigot. Nor does the fact that I look at people as individuals, rather than try to lump them into groups make me insensitive or disrespectful. In fact, just the opposite is true. Perhaps if you stop trying to group people together by how they look, and look at them for who they really are, you'll understand.

Apparently I struck a chord with Friday's "Constitutional Amendment of the Day".

Ruston Easton, would very much like to limit your gun rights:

Do we forget so easily that when the constitution was written the "arms" that would have been "beared" were muskets, which took maybe 30 sec. to a minute to load? There were no handguns, which were specially designed to kill, no AK-47s, or any other kind of automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Are you not aware that homes with guns are much more likely to cause an accidental death than they are a purposeful one? I'm not saying there should be no guns, but you are not accurately interpreting the constitution. Militias are specifically given the right, and that is to protect against tyranny of the government, definitely a good thing. But it does not protect an individual's right to carry a handgun or automatic weapon. That is where gun right's activists are misled.

Liberals love to point to the advancement of firearms as an excuse to regulate peoples rights. I guess we should limit freedom of the press because TV and Radio weren't around in the 1700s. There are numerous verifiable quotes from our founding fathers that express their exact intent when drafting the second amendment.

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

As for self defense, you are not allowed to murder somebody because they break into your home. You are allowed to use reasonable and necessary force to remove yourself from danger. We already have laws on the books that address this very situation.

As for fully-automatic firearms, they are already regulated. Most liberals don't know the difference between fully and semi automatic anyway.

Look at how Ruston, conveys himself: Militia's are "given" the right. The whole point of the bill of rights is that they are not granted or given, they are protected. Your right to life, liberty, and property are granted by God, not the government. Never mind that Militia's are run by the state, and thus would not be an effective deterrent against tyranny.

As for accidental deaths, his statement is just plain wrong. With respect to accidents in the home, toasters are much more likely to cause accidents in the home than firearms. With respect to the kill ratio of 'accidental deaths' vs. 'purposeful ones' this is probably in reference to Kellerman's 1986 paper. I'm not going to get into the flaws of his paper, but you can read about it here.

I've been keeping an eye on Conservatives Suck since it's not too long ago inception. It is much like that bad USA movie you're watching at 2 AM. You really ought to get some sleep because you have to work tomorrow, but you just cannot seem to shut it off.

Since coming online, Conservatives has made some improvements to the interface, added comments, links, and even a hot or not blog rater thingy. I actually like to take partial credit for him adding comments, as I requested it early on, so I could refute some of his conservative bashing. He probably would have added it eventually any way, but I like that he listened to constructive criticism. Although he had made some improvements to the site, the content was lacking, and basically consisted of nudie links, Bush bashing, veganism, and worrying about the baseball strike.

Lately, his site has fallen into disrepair. The Blog Hot or Not has been dropped since his rating dropped to a paltry 1.7, his comments are gone, and there are some strange blogger errors all up and down the site. At first I thought he was just having trouble with the HTML of his template, but now he leaves a teaser that he may be shutting down. "My page is either fixed or FUBAR," he writes, "I will find out in a couple hours. This may be the end of things for me."

What could this mean? Could it be that another hard core liberal wacko has bitten the dust? Perhaps Blogspot found out that he's figured out a way to cover their advertising banner. Either way, I'll be sad to see him go. He may have been silly and ignorant, but he stood firm behind his paranoia and radical beliefs. I respect that. Besides, he was a good source of nudie links.

A hamster who was found driving a miniature hot rod car down a British beach has been jailed. His vehicle was fashioned so that a built in hamster wheel provided power to the toy car. Police theorize that someone inadvertently left him outside, and he got away. The hamster, nicknamed Speedy, is currently serving out his jail sentence at the RSPCA.

Wisconsin had planned on banning the musket of WVU mascot, claiming it is a weapon. The musket fires black powder, but no projectile, and after some debate, Wisconsin has backed down.

Virginia Tech fires a cannon whenever they score a touchdown, but I don't think they take it on the road. If WVU only fires the musket when they score, it might be a moot point.

The BBC reports on a 'hate crime' where two white men attacked and murdered a black policeman. They tag the article with 'Only reason for hostility was colour', and quote the prosecutor as saying "It was in effect an unjustified racist attack, and very much real." When is it ever justified?

What is it that makes people think that one criminal's motivation is better than the other? Why is a crime considered more justified if the motivation was money, or something else? Crime is crime, and criminals should be punished for the actions they take, not the thoughts in their head. Whether or not someone is murdered for the $5 in their pocket, or the $100,000 in their briefcase, the result is the same. Whether a murder victim is targeted or random, they suffer the same fate. While motive is important to demonstrate to a jury, for reasons of due process, it does not necessarily mean that a crime is more or less justified.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Just as Amendment I confirms your basic rights to freedom of expression and religion, Amendment II confirms your basic individual right to keep and bear arms. Like it or not, your basic freedoms of life, liberty, property, expression, and religion are all protected at the point of a gun. Whereas the government is your first line of defense, your individual freedom to bear arms is your last.

In the US, self defense is a basic human right. Believe it or not, the police have no responsibility to protect individual life and property, and officers dispatched by the 911 emergency system are very rarely able to prevent crime. In fact, in the vast majority of cases the Police simply investigate crimes that have already been committed, and try to enforce laws after the fact. This doesn't help you very much if you are already dead. In nations like Britain, citizens have no right to self defense, and can actually be jailed for harming an attacker.

Freedom to keep and bear arms also provides a safeguard against tyranny. Throughout the ages, most murders take place at the hands of governments. People in power simply cannot be trusted, even during this day and age. Power has the ability to corrupt people, and an armed populace is a check and balance on that power. "Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty." -- Vladimir Lenin

Also, believe it or not, an armed society has proved to be a deterrent to foreign invasion. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan opted not to try to invade the US mainland for fear of armed citizens. Japan knew that millions of private citizens in America have firearms, and an invasion would be very costly.

Despite recent attacks on the individual right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment stands firm. September 11, has reminded us that our government is not always able to provide basic safety and security. Your individual right to protect yourself and your family should not be taken away.

A beggar in Italy will now only accept whole Euro's from passers by. Since giving up the Italian Lira for the Euro, the beggar has been largely receiving donations in only one or two cent increments.

He is quoted as whining, "life for us beggars has become even more difficult with the introduction of the Euro. People are not willing to give as much anymore."

If donations fail to improve, he may have to actually go out and get a job.

"We didn't want anything too centered on nationalism-anything that is 'Go U.S.A.' " -- Hazel Wong, chief organizer for the Ass. Students of the University of California, referring to not allowing the distribution of red white and blue pins at a 9-11 ceremony.

"I have a (U.S. flag) pin. I was embarrassed to wear it." -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

-- from the Best of the Web today.

Apparently some adults are enjoying this Harry Potter broom a little too much. Just check out some of the customer comments about one of its features that is quite popular with the ladies.

Thanks to Jenn with two "n"s for this scoop, although she won't admit to owning one.

UPDATE (9/20): Amazon removed and edited the reviews to this product. Previously, several adult women had commented on enjoying the broom's vibrating feature. You can read the text of some of the removed reviews here.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The basic rights confirmed (not granted) by Amendment I are, by far, the most important foundations of a free society. Totalitarian governments usually have strict control over people's right of worship, expression, as well as their right to criticize the government. Controlling the press, and preventing criticism is especially important in maintaining any good dictatorship.

Today, people often confuse the freedom of expression with a right to be heard, or a right not to face the consequences of what is said. While you may have a right to express yourself, you don't have the right to force others to listen, nor do you have the right to force others to provide you with a medium. You must also be prepared for backlash from people if what you express is offensive. Just because you have the right to speak, doesn't mean that you should. Some people need to learn to shut up for their own good.

Freedom of religion is often confused with freedom FROM religion. So called, 'civil libertarians' see a religious display in a public place, and they wish to abolish it. They wish to expunge even generic references to 'God' and 'Creator', under the semblance that it is the state establishment of religion.

Regardless of these attacks, Amendment I is still at the core of our free society. Our founding fathers realized that certain rights were 'unalienable', and could not be taken away. Amendment I doesn't grant your freedom of speech, it protects it. It restricts the government from trying to take it away. Without it, we would never have gotten this far.

The WSJ points out that even the Mayor of London admits to feeling safer in New York. While crime is increasing in London and decreasing in New York, the mayor points out that overall, homicides in London are still lower. He adds that fear of crime was much higher in London than crime itself. How profound.

According to the English language Saudi Newspaper, Arab News, the "American government has become a colonial outpost of the Zionist terror-state," and Jews have infiltrated both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US. Still miffed over losing their 'strategic choices' for Congress, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney, Arabs have declared that the two-party system is dead. Key blame for McKinney's defeat is placed on Jewish money, and the 'Jewish owned and edited' Washington Post and Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The article goes on to make outrageous claims that former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was in cahoots with Democratic Governor Roy Barnes to conspire against McKinney, and that if Al Gore were President, the war with Iraq would have already started. The author, self described as an Israeli journalist in Jaffa, offers hope that Americans will reject Imperialism, and the 'two-party system-trap'.

Just how many political parties are there in Saudi Arabia? How about Iraq, Iran, or "Palestine"?

Somebody pissed in Rachel's cheerios this morning, so look out. Her latest rant is about negative feedback and insults she receives from readers, namely Mike. Mike allegedly responded to Rachel's conservativeness by saying she sounds "like a snotty little spoiled bigot". You cannot really blame Mike, as he was simply using a response directly from the leftist playbook.

You see, left-wingers don't really have a logical argument. Their arguments are based on emotion, and feeling rather than logic. That is why they continue to think the way they do, regardless of the facts. Apparently Mike couldn't present a logical argument to Rachel's views, so he took the typical liberal escape route. He resorted to branding and name-calling.

Liberals love to brand people. For instance, if you disagree with liberals on an environmental measure, you are branded as a corporate lackey, or greedy. However ridiculous it may sound, some liberals would actually say that you are in favor of pollution and destruction of the environment. Rachel was broad-sided with an allegation of bigotry. Mike must feel that her political viewpoints indicate that she just doesn't like non-whites because they are different. Liberals cannot possibly understand the conservative viewpoint that keeping people on welfare, and dependent on the government hurts them as much as it helps them. Therefore, in a liberal's narrow intolerant view, anyone who disagrees must be a bigot, or racist.

Liberals also love good old fashioned name calling. Rachel was called, spoiled, little, and snotty. This is class envy liberalism at it's best. Liberals will label anyone who speaks out against confiscatory tax hikes as rich, or spoiled. How dare somebody want to keep a higher percentage of the money they earn. Since there is no logical way to defend taking money from one person at the point of a gun and giving it to another, Libs resort to the "if you hate taxes, then you must be a spoiled greedy bastard," mantra.

Now I'm not trying to criticize Rachel for flaming Mike, nor explain away the actions of misguided liberals. I'm just pointing out that Mike's alleged comments, while desperate and sad, were the only way he could respond in the face of logic and facts. Democrats let their emotions get the best of them. When they open their mouth, it is often followed by their own foot slamming down their throat. What do you expect from a party whose mascot is the jackass.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X was part of the original 10 Amendments that made up the Bill of Rights. Basically, it says that the power of the federal government comes from the individual states, and the people.

Two hundred years ago, people referred to themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, or Pennsylvanians rather than Americans. Our founding fathers realized that regional decisions were best made at the regional level, and not at the Nation's Capital. The Tenth Amendment was reassurance that States would remain in charge within their own borders, and could best represent their populace.

Unfortunately, by the mid 19th Century and culminating during the Civil War, Amendment number 10 was killed off. The Imperial Federal Government has seized sovereignty over all states within the Union, and these powers have been upheld in federal courts. The ever expanding Government reaches out with taxes on productivity, regulation of interstate commerce, and ownership of land within the states.

Limiting or even slowing down the growth of the Federal Government has proved to be very difficult, as more and more Americans look to the Fed to solve all of their problems. Congressmen, whether idealistic or opportunistic, use this welfare dependency to foster and maintain the power of the government and politicians.

Hopefully, some day Amendment X will be restored. Hopefully it will once again return to keeping a check and balance on the power, the size, and the reach of the Federal Government.

Decendent's of slaves are accusing more firms of profiting from slavery, and have filed suit against them. The lawsuits filed yesterday in New York and San Francisco, contend that companies should "pay reparations for reaping profits on the backs of people who worked without pay." The article doesn't mention how former slaves should collect this back pay. Surely, the decendents of slaves don't hope to profit from the evils of slavery by collecting that money themselves.

Proving that the Earth Summit is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors, hate-America, anti-capitalism festival, hecklers booed and shouted at Secretary Powell during his speech. 'Environmentalists' couldn't resist the chance the blast the US for our environmental record, and for refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty. It is their belief that if you don't give them wads of cash to support their proposals of how to best care for the environment, then you are pro-pollution.

Bush, who has been accused by Greens of putting arsenic in our drinking water, causing the flooding in Germany, and raising Antarctic temperatures 4-degrees, maintains the position that the Kyoto treaty is too expensive, and ineffective. In addition, man's attempt to control 'global warming' will cost this country plenty, and Greens want the US to foot the bill. Anyone who disagrees with their methods is considered 'soft' on the environment.

Proving that we are damned either way, Greens are already saying the US has 'hijacked' the Earth Summit. Before, they were upset because President Bush sent Powell instead of attending himself.

FYI, my comment provider is going up and down. They had a pretty bad DoS attack over the holiday weekend and may take a little while to recover. Use caution when commenting. If a comment doesn't show up after you leave it, that is probably the reason.

"The president is not a prop for some reality show." -- The White House, when told by CNN that they could only have prior access to the 'Terror on Tape' if CNN was allowed to film the President reacting in horror to the now infamous puppy gassing.

Augusta National and the Master's Tournament is still under attack by feminazis who have nothing better to do. The attack is nothing more than an attempt to get their name in the paper, as there are much better causes to champion.

The Augusta National Golf Club is an ultra-exclusive PRIVATE club, and is not subject to the wills of anyone, much less militant feminists. Forcing them to add women to their membership (currently numbering about 300 members), would be like forcing you to invite your wife to your weekly poker game. It's just plain wrong. Responding to their threat to boycott sponsors of the Master's Tourney, the Master's has turned away all corporate sponsors. Not to be dissuaded, the feminizes now plan to boycott CBS, and anyone else who covers the Master's in the media.

It hasn't even occurred to the feminists, that this is precisely the kind of behavior that keeps women out of men's clubs.

I first noted this story back in July.

Greek legislators had a problem. Enforcement of the existing laws against internet gambling proved to be quite difficult, because the Greek government was not very computer savvy. Rather than educate themselves so that they could tell the difference between video poker and Tetris, Greece decided to ban all video games.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XXI. What better way to celebrate Amendments than with the one that restored our freedom to celebrate in the second place. Amendment XXI (That's 21 for people in Palm Beach) repealed prohibition of alcohol and allowed people to once again purchase and possess it legally.

The repealing of prohibition is often overlooked, but it should stand as a prime example of what happens when special interests attack human behavior. Prohibition of alcohol seems absurd today, but there are many people out there that would like to prohibit cigarettes, fatty foods, gambling, and all the other vices in which we imperfect humans currently relish. A proliferation of dangerous home-made 'bathtub gin' and increased organized crime and bootlegging resulted from the passing of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Who is the bonehead at Microsoft that decided to disable the cut/paste feature in Frontpage 2002? In Frontpage 2000, to create a hyperlink, you simply opened the "Insert Hyperlink" window and pasted your link into the address bar. Frontpage 2002 disables right-click and even keyboard shortcuts for pasting links. Microsoft calls this a "feature".

Lithuania is using cardboard cutouts of policemen to control traffic. This is a stark contrast to the US method of having actual policemen doze along side the road.

Across the country, replacing the napping cops with cardboard cutouts that are just as effective has been met with rigid resistance from policeman's unions, who claim there is no substitute for the real thing. Not only does cardboard not have the look and feel of a real cop, but there is no chance of the cardboard officer being awakened by a craving for donuts and coffee. In the US, most of the cutouts would be stolen and end up on college dorm-room walls.

Go straight to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect eternal salvation.

What is there to say about a man that attacks, rapes, and murders a nun? In the immortal words of Eddie Murphy, I guess he "wanted to go to Hell, but didn't want to stand in line with everybody," so he's taking the "Hell Express."

Site traffic increased dramatically in August. Here are some raw numbers: 2067 visitors (733 in July), 11302 page views (3701 in July), 21263 hits (10,245 in July), and 184.2 MB (48.56 in July).

While this pales in comparison to blogs like Instapundit or Amish Tech Support, I am pleased with the increase. Thanks for reading and commenting on my weblog. While I may not answer every comment, I do read them all. I also constantly look for ways to improve the site, and appreciate all the fine suggestions and comments I have received in the past.

Congress is taking a closer look at insider trading at Global Crossing. I wonder if they will look into how Terry McAulliff, Chairman of the DNC, was able to turn $100,000 into over $18,000,000. I doubt it.

In a desperate money grab, American Airlines will begin charging passengers $100 to stand by for earlier flights. As a seasoned business traveler, and somebody who has a pretty good knowledge of how the airline industry works, I can tell you that this is a bad business decision. First of all, American Airlines is taking away convenience from travelers. Air travel is already inconvenient enough, and airlines have cut everything from meals to baggage allowances. The flying public can only take so much, and this won't do much to return fliers to the skies. Frequent fliers will be impacted most, as they fly stand-by more often. These passengers may end up defecting to other airlines if they don't follow AMR's lead.

The other, not so obvious impact, is that this will prevent the airline gate agents from consolidating flights. Why force a passenger to wait around the airport for their flight when you can put them on a flight that is departing immediately, and then sell their vacated seat later on? By trying to squeeze $100 out of a passenger trying to get to his destination an hour earlier, you risk sacrificing $1000 or more that you could get by selling their seat at the last minute. Once an airplane leaves the gate, the opportunity to sell those empty seats disappears.